Page 3106 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 17 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Until now I have allowed members to seek leave and I have been quite easy about it because that is open, on an interpretation of "the consent of a majority". It has been pointed out to me that the convention has been to move a motion. In that way, if the motion is agreed to, we do not have to move, as Mr Kaine felt he had to, for the suspension of standing orders. If I forget to ask for a motion to be moved, would members do that, or seek an extension for themselves, so that we are quite clear about the procedures. I apologise if before today I have misled people who are more familiar with this rule. From now on I will seek a motion under that standing order for an extension of any member's time.
MR MOORE (10.00): The interesting thing about that standing order is the extra little proviso that no extension of time shall exceed half the original period allotted. That is unlucky for those members who think they get 10 minutes every time.
MADAM SPEAKER: They have been thus far, Mr Moore, and that is the problem. We will cease doing that as well.
Mr Cornwell: We can probably begin with you, Mr Moore.
MR MOORE: I will not need the extra time at all. I feel very relaxed about it. Madam Speaker, this is a very strong report that makes some valid criticisms and, in general terms, provides a good assessment of the budget and the budget process. It appreciates the time and effort that Ministers and their public servants put in and makes some suggestions about possible ways to improve. That is the whole weight of about 98 or 99 per cent of the report.
Unfortunately, the debate this evening has dwelt on the other one per cent. I do not want to continue that practice, other than to refer to a couple of little comments that are just too much for me. In particular, the constant comments about Ms Ellis and her final meeting have been taken a little out of context. Ms Ellis did turn up; she did have a Social Policy Committee public hearing. I think some of the comments about Ms Ellis's participation have been churlish. Generally, I think members participate strongly in all committees, and we must not lose sight of that. Ms Ellis made a decision about her priorities - I think, a very valid decision. Unfortunately, the rest of us at that meeting felt that, because of the time restrictions on us, the committee report should be finalised and that there was an opportunity for members to make a dissenting report. That is what they were forced to do. In some ways that was unfortunate, but I think it was the most efficient way to deal with the situation at the time. That is why I agreed to that position, and I still think it was the appropriate one.
Another issue raised that was of some interest to me was the notion that there was a leak of this report to the Canberra Times and that something should be done about that. The members who raised that ought to be aware of standing order 71, because what you are talking about is a matter of privilege. Standing order 71 provides:
Upon a matter of privilege arising:
(a) a Member shall give written notice of the alleged breach to the Speaker as soon as reasonably practicable after the matter has come to that Member's attention.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .