Page 1553 - Week 05 - Thursday, 15 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Changing the standing orders to protect ministers is not what the standing orders are about. The standing orders are there to make sure this place works well, to make sure that it works effectively and to hold all people to account.
MS GALLAGHER (Molonglo—Chief Minister, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Health and Minister for Higher Education) (10.52): The government supports Mr Rattenbury’s motion for the referral of standing order 241 to the standing committee on admin and procedure for inquiry and report. We support this in relation to the disclosure of general procedural facts relating to the business of committees. Such an approach would be equivalent to the standing orders of the New Zealand parliament, which provide greater flexibility to members to discuss procedural matters on an as-required basis.
We need to remain mindful of the unique situation of this Eighth Assembly and the need to maintain a committee structure that reflects the make-up of our Assembly. We are not a parliament of 150 people. We do not have a political make-up which provides for many political parties to be represented on committees. We are and will remain small in relative terms, and the processes and rules we put in place need to have a good dose of common sense underpinning them.
Whilst the current committee structure has experienced some challenges with voting, often being split evenly between the representatives from the two major parties, this is what the community has voted for, and it should be reflected in the way we handle committee business. However, this does not preclude us from reviewing the guidelines that dictate the procedures governing committee business.
I believe there are opportunities for increased openness in the operation of this Assembly that could be considered. The New Zealand committee process provides for a high level of public access to and transparency in the parliamentary process, as a distinctive feature, in comparison with most other Westminster-model parliaments.
I support the motion Mr Rattenbury has put forward today. I look forward to seeing the results of the consideration of the committee when it reports back to the Assembly.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (10.53), in reply: I welcome the fact that this will go to the administration and procedures committee, but I want to reflect on the fact that I think Mr Smyth has come up with a rather disingenuous framing of the issue. The reality is that the issue that I am trying to address is a practical one: political parties in this place clearly do talk about some of the tactical and procedural issues around committees. Anybody who comes in here and says otherwise is being dishonest.
I know for a fact that I have sat in various administration and procedures committees where these sorts of things have been discussed. We have talked about the issue of conduct in certain committees and the way that is playing out in light of the standing orders. I know there have been conversations across parties about some of these issues and how they should be resolved. There have been conversations that various members have been involved in. If we were to take the high-handed position that Mr Smyth is putting, probably just about all the members of this place should be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video