Page 896 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 27 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
in attending committee hearings and doing private research. Then, of course, members spend time going through reports, trying to get the ideal report; trying to come to a judicial feeling of consensus with other members of the committee can be very time consuming.
I notice in the debate that the only member of the Opposition to speak about the committee structure was the Leader of the Opposition - I am talking, of course, of Ms Follett. Ms Follett is great in theory on what should be done in committees and what the duties and responsibilities of the members are, et cetera, but Ms Follett, to my knowledge, has never sat on a House of Assembly committee meeting yet.
A member: Legislative Assembly.
Mr Moore: Well, in fact she did sit on House of Assembly committees.
MR DUBY: Yes, of course, this is the Legislative Assembly. She has never done any committee work whatsoever and yet she puts herself up as the expert on what needs to be done and what needs not to be done, and has various problems identified there.
One of the pleasing features I was happy to see come out in this report is the identification of a need for an additional committee - a legal affairs committee. This recognises, contrary to what Ms Follett raised, the significant difference between a scrutiny of Bills committee and a legal affairs committee. The scrutiny of Bills committee, as we know, needs to be absolutely totally impartial, not that I am suggesting that any other committee should not be totally impartial either, but almost invariably people go into matters to be looked at by committees with a preconceived view, with a general philosophical leaning or bent, and, of course, that is not what is required with a scrutiny of Bills. You simply have to be a very technical and, as I said, a very impartial operator. I think it is quite sensible of the committee to recognise that fact and to establish the fact that the matters that need to be addressed by the legal affairs committee cover a whole range of issues. It should be a separate standing committee of this Assembly.
The other thing I was pleased to recognise, also, was the fact that the committee has clearly identified that three members is the ideal size of a standing committee. Given the workload that I have already outlined and - - -
Mr Wood: The practical.
MR DUBY: It is the practical size. Yes, I suppose that is the way to address it. There was an interjection there by Mr Wood who, along with Mrs Grassby, is the only member of the Opposition here in this debate. I notice that the standing orders say that a committee may comprise up to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .