Page 2596 - Week 07 - Thursday, 2 August 2018
competing issues. There is obviously no point in having a committee if it is abundantly obvious that everyone has already made up their minds; equally, MLAs have an obligation to represent their constituents and to talk about issues of importance to them. We have to get a balance which is fair on both of these competing priorities.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (10.38): The Canberra Liberals will be opposing this motion for a variety of reasons. Firstly, as a member of the committee, neither Mrs Kikkert nor I was advised of this motion as a courtesy.
Ms Cheyne: It has been on the notice paper since Monday.
MRS DUNNE: It has been on the notice paper since Monday, yes, but if Ms Cheyne wants to make a departure from the established standing orders, it would have been a courtesy for her to flag this issue with her committee colleagues.
Ms Cheyne: You could have talked to me about it at any time over the past three days.
MRS DUNNE: Ms Cheyne can interject all she likes but I do not resile from the fact that Ms Cheyne, as one member of the committee dealing with another, should have at least had the courtesy of raising this—and it is her initiative—with Mrs Kikkert and me. It is clear that she has raised it with Ms Le Couteur. If it is good enough for Ms Le Couteur, it is good enough for Mrs Kikkert and me.
It is not about wounded pride or being miffed that Ms Cheyne has not raised this issue with Mrs Kikkert and me. The issue is a proposal to radically depart from the standing orders in this place. Quite frankly, it is about Ms Cheyne’s personal aggrandisement. An opportunity has presented itself whereby an issue that she is passionate about has been raised in the public, and she feels that she may be constrained in some way from participating in that debate.
I submit that it is not necessary to suspend the provisions of standing order 241. Standing order 241 is quite broad, and there is nothing to stop Ms Cheyne or any other member of the end of life committee speaking in public about something that they believe in, as long as they do not divulge the private deliberations of the committee. A member could, for instance, refer to a published submission. It is on the public record. You do not need to suspend standing order 241 to refer to something which is in the public domain. Members of the public have given evidence in public and that evidence is published. There is nothing to stop a member of this place, either a member of the committee or anyone else, referring to that public evidence.
This motion is unnecessary and unprecedented. On the basis that it is unnecessary, I am opposed to it. On the basis that it is unprecedented that Ms Cheyne wants to find some way of getting around the standing orders, I am opposed to it. The Canberra Liberals will be opposing this motion.
MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong) (10.41): I was listening very carefully to what Mrs Dunne had to say. Whilst I think that, on the face of it, she is making a very literal interpretation of the standing orders which is probably a fair one, with respect