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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (2 March) . . Page.. 504 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

That is a somewhat silly position to be in. Clearly, if the Bill as a whole is to be considered by the committee, amendments that might be on the table - in a loose use of that term - ought to be also considered by the committee. So some kind of limited capacity for self-referral may well be appropriate even in those circumstances. In fact, I have considered suggesting some amendments to the Assembly standing orders to deal with those sorts of issues and a couple of others that have concerned me. I will raise those in due course.

MR BERRY (12.11): Mr Humphries ignored some of the requirements of the standing orders and the powers of committees. Under the provisions of the standing orders, the committees have the power to require persons and call for papers to come before them - summon people, in other words. If somebody were to refuse, as an individual, then it would be possible for them to be held in contempt of the Assembly if the matter were redirected back to the Assembly. Similarly, committees can swear witnesses and it is not beyond the power of committees to call on witnesses.

If a committee decided, in its wisdom or otherwise, that it wanted a particular public servant to give evidence on oath, then it would be free to do so. It draws on the power of the Constitution. Page 659 of House of Representatives Practice states:

It goes on.

Mr Humphries: Are you saying public servants cannot be forced to give evidence?

MR BERRY: No, I am saying that a public servant could be called by the committee to give evidence and that he or she could be put on oath for those purposes, if that was what was decided by the committee. If a public servant then refused to attend, he or she could be found in contempt of the Assembly. The powers of the committee are quite wide in these respects. It is up to the committee at the time to decide whether to pursue these matters.

Mr Humphries refers to a case when Labor was in office. He did not name me, but I recall the circumstances where I said that I, and not the public servants, would be taking the questions on the matter. That is how it was dealt with. It was quite open to the committee - on my assessment anyway - to call the public servant and put him on oath and deal with the matter. If the public servant refused to attend or whatever, then the question of contempt could be decided by the Assembly.

Many complicated things have to happen along the way which might prevent a contempt motion being carried. This might end up being a meaningless move by a committee at the end of the day anyway. Those are the facts as I see them. I think it

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