Page 1245 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 3 April 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
which are longstanding, that you do not bring substantive motions forward in respect of matters that committees are deliberating on.
Ms Le Couteur cited two precedents in this place, including precedents that members of this place now have been involved in. One of them directly impacted Mrs Dunne. She stood down from the committee. I was not here for that particular one. We have had to look at Hansard for that, but Mrs Dunne knows that history.
Of course, when we examined end of life choices the year before last, this whole chamber recognised that there was a constraint on members and it explicitly took a decision that, given the public interest in that topic, we would grant members the ability to have a public discussion, because that is what we collectively agreed to.
There was a clear recognition by this chamber not so long ago, by all 25 members who are here now. It was not some relic of history, not some rule that someone else came up with. We all collectively recognised that that was the practice of this place and we wanted to make an express exemption for it.
But today we see a political attack on Ms Le Couteur because it does not suit the Liberal Party today. You cannot operate the standing orders like that. They are not about suiting the political agenda of the day. They are about the long-term operation of this place. Ms Le Couteur has flagged in her remarks that if this Assembly collectively wants to change those rules, let us have that conversation. That is what—
Mr Wall: But the advice is that we are not contravening the rules.
Mrs Jones: The advice is that it does not.
Mr Wall: Let us get to the basis of that.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Rattenbury, just continue; do not respond. Mr Wall!
MR RATTENBURY: Mr Wall is interjecting. I should not respond to his point—
MADAM SPEAKER: No, you should not.
MR RATTENBURY: but I will. Ms Le Couteur was clear in her advice. She represented it as the Clerk gave it to her, that it is not a breach of the standing orders but it is the practice of this place. That is what I have just talked about. The practice of this place.
Mr Wall: So it is not the rules? So the rules do not need to be changed.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Wall, enough!
MR RATTENBURY: Mr Wall well knows that there are the rules and there are the practices of this place. The practices of this place are understood. I have just outlined the example. He continues to interject.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video