Page 278 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 12 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That makes no reference to what was or was not discussed. It allows us to draw some conclusions about it. A question about the discussion in the committee could well have been answered by Ms Ellis today, but instead there was a point of order.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Moore, I will caution you. Even to presume that they did not discuss something is still to presume something about what that committee may or may not have decided. They may well still report on it in their report; we simply do not know. I will caution you: Please, do not refer to the work of that committee.
MR MOORE: Madam Speaker, we have a motion to refer this matter to a select committee. I think it would be of assistance to the Assembly if the chair of the Social Policy Committee pointed out to the Assembly whether that committee would be prepared to take on this motion or not to take on a motion such as this, so that the Assembly could then understand more clearly whether or not it would be more appropriate to take this issue to the select committee.
Mr Connolly: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I can perhaps be of assistance to you. You have consistently reminded Mr Moore of standing order 241 relating to the publication of evidence. That is modelled precisely on standing order 340 of the House of Representatives, and there is extensive discussion on the confidentiality provision at page 606 of Browning. Mr Moore is, in effect, trying to incite the chair of the committee to explain what the committee may or may not have done. That, surely, as you have repeatedly said, is a matter for the committee to decide on in their deliberations, and Mr Moore really is quite out of order in attempting to exploit what may or may not have happened. I remind him that he has made this point repeatedly in the past.
MR MOORE: Madam Speaker, since you spoke to me last I have not done that at all. I referred to it in a quite different way. Anyway, I have moved past that.
In Mrs Carnell's speech she pointed out that putting something like this to a committee would mean that it is an excuse for no action. I do not accept that, because the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. There is nothing to stop a government proceeding with a program - for example, on unemployment - whilst a committee is looking at that particular issue. In fact, rather to the contrary, the two could work in a cooperative way. The committee could make suggestions and, through their chair, public suggestions, even before they report, as to what action could be taken by a government in order to assist in alleviating a particular problem.
All members of the Assembly have basically - and, I believe, genuinely - agreed that we ought to be doing something about youth unemployment. We can sit here and hit each other over the head all night and wind up trying to score political points on the issue or we can try to pool some of our ideas. For example, we heard some ideas from Mrs Carnell, who said that the way to resolve the problem is to cut payroll tax. Then she referred to death duties and used that as an example of how cutting tax can be very helpful, as it was in Queensland. The abolition of penalty rates and a series of other suggestions are worthy of consideration.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .