Page 3687 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 15 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES: For the moment; we may become the largest in due course. When we get to be the largest, I am sure the position will remain the same. At the moment, as only the second largest, we feel that we should have the right to at least one member on the committee.
Of course, the function of the chairman of the committee, the Speaker, although he is a member of the Liberal Party, is to represent minor parties on the committee. That is a role he has even more capacity to play now that there has been some increase in the number of minor parties in this Assembly. We now have eight parties on the floor of the Assembly - a ratio of roughly one party to every two members of the Assembly, which is a rather unfortunate state of affairs. Nonetheless, that is the right of members under the laws as they stand.
Mr Kaine: Some of them have two parties.
MR HUMPHRIES: Indeed, some members have more than one party; but we will not go into that. The fact of life is that every party of more than one member ought to be represented on this committee, and the effect of the motion and the amendment would be to provide for that.
It is also the case, however, that there are a number of parties with only one member on the floor of the Assembly. In fact, there are five such individuals now on the floor of the Assembly. It would be possible, I suppose, to put each of those five on the committee; but it would make the committee impossibly large. A majority of the Assembly would be sitting on the Administration and Procedures Committee, which is a silly idea.
Mr Kaine: The Estimates Committee has had no more than five members there at any time.
MR HUMPHRIES: Indeed. I think we would find ourselves hopelessly bogged down every time we tried to discuss matters, if that were the case. I also point out that, if there were to be a committee with one representative from each party on the floor of the Assembly, it would mean that five parties representing five members would have five votes on the committee - a majority - whereas three parties representing 12 members would have only three members on the committee. It would be a somewhat inequitable distribution of power on that committee.
It does warrant that we examine this issue, and I suggest that in the circumstances it would be appropriate to accept the motion moved by Mr Jensen and the amendment I have moved. I do not have any animosity towards Mrs Nolan; I do not think she should come off per se.
Mrs Nolan: I could have been advised.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .