Page 1951 - Week 06 - Thursday, 2 May 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The simple fact is that members of committees are supposed to be, in my view, there to represent members of the Assembly, to represent the interests of their constituents in matters that concern them.
To complain, for example, that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as Executive Deputy for police, justice and sport, and also a trained solicitor, should not be a member of a committee called the Legal Affairs Committee is, to me, quite ludicrous.
Mr Connolly: He can be a member, but not chair. Try to pay attention.
MR DUBY: This argument that restrictions should be placed on the voting system within the committee as to who should be the chair and who should not is clearly farcical. To claim that Mr Jensen, who has a strong interest in matters concerning planning, development and infrastructure, should not be a member of that committee is clearly ludicrous.
As Mr Kaine so ably put it, it was this Assembly that appointed those members to the various committees. For those members of the Opposition to say that this Assembly has no right to do such a thing is clearly ludicrous, and for them then to try to impose on the committee membership their own views as to who should be the chair and who should not is again clearly ludicrous.
I am surprised and I do not understand why, for example, Mr Berry has no objections whatsoever to being a member of the Administration and Procedures Committee which is chaired by the Speaker and which looks into all the matters pertaining to the standing orders and the management of this house.
Ms Follett: Read your standing orders.
MR DUBY: The standing orders can be changed. I have never heard anyone put a motion that that should not be the case.
Ms Follett: Do you want to make him an Executive Deputy? Are you going to stand down?
MR DUBY: What I am suggesting is that, if the Speaker can act as chairman and be quite independent of the matters that are before the committee, it is exactly the same situation as applies to anyone else. The argument is still the same. According to your line of argument, the Speaker should not be the chair of the Administration and Procedures Committee because the things that he looks at in that committee are matters over which he has control. He does have control over various issues. He is the person who interprets the standing orders under which we operate; yet you allow him to chair a committee which looks into standing orders. It does not make sense.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .