Page 3161 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 12 September 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
subsequently - on the motion of Mr Collaery's colleague - been adopted as evidence by that committee and been released for publication. Therefore it was not apparent to the Public Accounts Committee that the information that Mr Collaery was tabling was other than a document intended for consideration by that committee.
Mr Speaker, I take your point that the matter does not warrant precedence. That is your view and it is your right to rule that way; but I do believe that the Assembly ought to have a close look at the operation of standing order 241 in particular and, of course, standing order 71 which deals with the matter of privilege. I believe that the Administration and Procedures Committee is the appropriate place for this examination to be carried out. If it is to be the case that we can raise matters in this chamber which will subsequently become evidence before committees, then I think we need a general understanding of this. It is my belief that there was a previous occasion where a matter of privilege was raised but not proceeded with. There was a similar circumstance - maybe not identical, but a similar circumstance. That has not really been resolved either.
I request the Assembly's support for this matter to be looked at by the Administration and Procedures Committee. I commend the motion to members.
MR COLLAERY (Deputy Chief Minister) (3.49): Mr Speaker, the Government would support the sentiments that the Leader of the Opposition has made about clarifying these issues, particularly the procedures issue; but we see no point in this process being used for what we suspect will be political grandstanding on an empty claim about a breach of privilege.
Mr Speaker, I read into the record from page 672 of House of Representatives Practice, which clearly indicates that the submission of a written statement is not deemed to be the giving of evidence unless it is so ordered by the committee. I was not ordered by the committee to write to Ms Follett. I tabled in the Assembly a letter I had written to Ms Follett, which itself was very embarrassing for Ms Follett and clearly - - -
Ms Follett: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe that we are debating the reference to the committee, not the substance of the matter. I think Mr Collaery would be better off leaving those sorts of arguments to a further examination.
MR SPEAKER: I overrule your objection there. I do not believe that it is improper for Mr Collaery to state the case.
MR COLLAERY: Mr Speaker, the short point at issue is: do we need to clarify the procedures whereby a member of this Assembly, particularly a Minister, may release papers after critical comment in this Assembly? Members will recall
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .