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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2017 Week 14 Hansard (Thursday, 30 November 2017) . . Page.. 5397 ..

election since the appointment referred to in terms of casual vacancies. There has been a federal election since that time, so this does not even relate to a contemporary appointment to fill a casual vacancy because there has been a general election.

So this is about the future, not about the past. In that context the government is able to support Minister Rattenbury’s amendment because it has been couched in exactly those terms. That is the intent of Minister Rattenbury’s amendment and that is a very important point to make, given the media commentary to date and certainly what Mrs Dunne was intending in her original motion that sought to highlight Senator Gallagher and then in the subsequent additional motion in relation to establishing a committee of privileges.

It is just a little bit too cute at this point, Mrs Dunne, to suggest that you are not or were not gunning for Senator Gallagher. But commonsense has prevailed, and for that reason the government can support Minister Rattenbury’s amendment.

MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (12.13): As I said before, I thank Mr Rattenbury for his suggestions, but I need to comment on the Chief Minister’s remarks. He can call me cute as much as he likes, but that does not detract from the fact that (2)(c) envisages not only a prospective review but a retrospective review. Paragraph (2)(c) refers to whether the previous “appointments”—pleural—made by the Assembly might be considered in hindsight to be unsound. Again, this is completely and utterly about the Assembly’s procedures. The Chief Minister is right: it will have no bearing on any person’s eligibility to sit in the Senate.

If by doing this we found out that Mr Humphries had been ineligible, it would have no impact on his term as a senator. If we found out that the appointment made in March 2015 was for a person who may have been ineligible, it would have no impact on that person’s capacity to now sit in the Senate, because the casual vacancy has been overtaken by time and a general election. The Chief Minister is correct on that, but he is not correct to say that this motion is only prospective; it is both prospective and retrospective. I commend the motion and Mr Rattenbury’s amendment to the Assembly.

Amendment agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

Continuing resolution 6—declaration of private interests of members


MS BURCH (Brindabella) (12.15): I move:

That continuing resolution 6 entitled Declaration of Private Interests of Members be amended by omitting all words after “That—” and substituting:

“(1) within 28 days of the making and subscribing of an oath or affirmation as a Member of the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory

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