Page 1395 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 13 May 2014

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video


operating. That is the issue that came to a head last week when we needed to resolve how to get a draft report tabled in this place.

This does not meet the threshold for privileges. I understand some analysis is to be done through admin and procedure about our standing orders so that they better reflect, yet again, the hung nature of our committee system. It is entirely legitimate that the committees are two members all—that is the nature of the parliament which was elected in 2012. The fact that there are games being played on committees—I am not pointing the finger at anyone—to make sure those committees do not operate in the way they have been operated in the past or do not reflect the nature of the Assembly that was elected is the problem we need to fix.

That is the problem and that needs to be fixed, but it will not be fixed by a privileges inquiry when nobody has done anything wrong other than talk about how to get a draft report tabled. There was no inappropriate disclosure of information. The members of the Labor Party on those committees take their responsibilities as committee members very seriously. The Labor caucus has always respected that.

This Assembly needs to wake up to the situation that we are almost halfway through this term. There are four-member committees—two Labor, two Liberal—and they should function. The community expects us to get it right so that they can function. That is the issue that needs to be resolved here. There is no other question before the Assembly.

MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (3.34): It is probably not unexpected that we are debating this motion today, and I thank you for your advice, Madam Speaker, in regards to offering this motion precedence. I would like to make a few remarks and explore the standing orders in contemplating the appropriateness or suitability of this motion. Standing order 278, which is the one in question, includes very similar criteria to that which you are required to assess, Madam Speaker, when it comes to the Assembly considering whether it should make a referral to a Select Committee on Privileges. It says:

… the Assembly’s power to adjudge and deal with contempts should be used only where it is necessary to provide reasonable protection for the Assembly and its committees and for Members against improper acts tending substantially to obstruct them in the performance of their functions …

That is the first test—the substantial obstruction in the performance of their functions. It goes on to say:

… and should not be used in respect of matters which appear to be of a trivial nature or unworthy of the attention of the Assembly:

The standing order also says:

… the existence of any remedy other than that power for any act which may be held to be a contempt;


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video