Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 11 Hansard (26 September) . . Page.. 3448 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The committee also considered that a number of inherent problems lay in the proposal. The issue of granting privilege to those who may not have an awareness of the responsibilities that freedom of speech brings with it was one concern. Also, the representatives addressing the Assembly, although they would be subject to the Assembly's standing orders, would not be subject to the same sanctions as members if they transgressed those standing orders. The committee also believes that, should the need arise, the Assembly currently has the power to pass a resolution either to require a person to appear before the bar of the Assembly or to enable a person to do so. However, it was of the view that the proposal would not improve the effectiveness of the Assembly and the representation of the community and, at the same time, possibly would weaken one of the Assembly's strongest links with the community, the committee system.

Generally, in conclusion, the committee concluded that the proposal did not offer any advantage for the community over the existing committee system and there were concerns that if it were implemented it might detrimentally impact on the effectiveness of the work done by the Assembly committees. Furthermore, the committee considered that there were inherent problems in the proposal which would detract from the Assembly.

MR HIRD (12.05): Mr Speaker, I wish to register my dissent from the committee's report. Firstly, the majority say that to introduce such a system would weaken the committee system of the parliament. Secondly, the majority of the committee claim that people who would seek to use this system would not be aware of their obligations under the standing orders of the parliament.

I put forward the view that this process would be a useful addition and a useful avenue for community groups to argue their case before their parliament. I disagree with the first conclusion. Rather than weaken the committee system, this process would be a useful addition to it. I agree that on the whole the committee system is the appropriate place for people to first make their submissions and for their arguments to be tested; but I do not concur that the community's voice should not be able to penetrate the walls of the Assembly and that people should be allowed to be heard only in the committee rooms. In many cases, Mr Speaker, it may be appropriate for the Assembly as a whole to hear from those directly concerned by decisions or proposals being considered by their elected members. The current situation is not a valid reason for rejecting the proposal, at least on a trial basis, which would provide an additional line of communication between this place and the whole of the community which it represents.

The suggestion that the "current relationship, which the work of the committee system represents, between the community, the field of expert opinion and the bureaucracy be weakened if the new temporary orders were adopted by imposing another line of communication" is not a valid reason, I submit, not to proceed with the proposal, at least on a trial basis. The additional line of communication between members of this place, sitting as one, and the wider community would, in my opinion, strengthen the community will to participate in the democratic process of the ACT. To reject the proposal is like saying, "We are the elected members of this place and we know it all. No-one else understands the procedure".

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .