Page 2438 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 7 August 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Acting Speaker, I do not believe that members of this Assembly should grant leave of absence in these circumstances where we have had no request from the individual for whom leave of absence is sought and no clear explanation of where the individual is. In particular, if it is asserted that Mr Speaker is attending the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference on behalf of this Assembly, then members of this Assembly ought to be satisfied that he is properly representing them.
If he is attending this Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference we need to know that the ACT Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association authorised Mr Speaker to attend on its behalf. My recollection of the meeting in question was that there is no such resolution. Nominations were to be called for to see whether any members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which comprises all the members of this Assembly, were interested in attending this conference. There was no resolution of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association authorising Mr Speaker to attend the Rarotonga meeting.
It cannot be debated that in August Rarotonga is more pleasant than facing this Assembly in Canberra, particularly facing hostile Opposition questions on education issues, but that does not authorise Mr Speaker to take it into his fancy to attend a meeting at Rarotonga purportedly on behalf of this Assembly, with no such resolution of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. As Mr Moore says, how has it been funded? I do not believe that the Opposition can support this motion which is a clear authority for Mr Prowse's absence.
If it is believed that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association minutes can confirm this, I would suggest to the Government that this debate be adjourned until we have had an opportunity to consider those minutes. I would move that the debate be adjourned.
MR HUMPHRIES (Minister for Health, Education and the Arts) (4.34): Mr Acting Speaker, I wish to speak in favour of the motion put by the Attorney-General and against the motion moved by Mr Connolly, assuming that we can debate both at the same time. I began the debate not quite sure on what grounds the Opposition claimed it was not going to grant Mr Speaker the leave that has been sought in the Attorney-General's motion today. I am still not sure that I am much enlightened. Someone said - and I think it was Ms Follett, but I could be mistaken - that because leave was sought later in the day rather than at 2.30 there is some reason not to grant him leave. I gather that the argument about the time is that if you ask leave at 2.30, as soon as the Assembly resumes, then it is okay; if you ask for it at 4.20, when it was actually sought, apparently, it is not okay. The logic of that escapes me entirely.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .