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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (2 March) . . Page.. 505 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

emphasises the power of committees to call on persons and papers and deal with them quite appropriately in the context of the powers which are provided, either by the standing orders, House of Representatives Practice, the Constitution and so on.

MR CORBELL (12.15), in reply: I will be brief. In the issues raised in the debate today we have seen that there continues to exist that creative tension between the legislature and the Executive and different perspectives on the powers of each. That is a positive thing for this place. The debate has been useful in that regard.

In closing the debate, I come back to a couple of points. The first relates to the points made by Mr Humphries in relation to self-referral. I note that he takes the view that matters of committee inquiries should, in the main, be determined by Assembly resolution rather than by a self-referral of the relevant committee.

I take a different view. The view I take is that, if the Assembly itself deems it appropriate that Assembly committees consider certain matters that warrant inquiry, then those committees should be allowed to undertake those inquiries. At the commencement of this Assembly, I was pleased to be able to move the amendment that gave Assembly committees the power of self-referral.

I believe it is a very positive and appropriate power for committees to be given by the Assembly, simply because there are often issues which deserve to be raised and brought to the attention of the Assembly through the self-referral process - important issues in the community that perhaps may not otherwise warrant or gain the full attention of a majority of Assembly members. But once an inquiry has been initiated through a self-referral in a standing committee, that will bring the debate into the Assembly at a later stage in a way which will open it up to Assembly members and hopefully convince them that it is an issue that warrants further attention.

It is a positive power - one that certainly has not been abused by standing committees in this place as long as I have been here. Indeed, I think there are probably only a handful of inquiries that have been self-referred. The great majority of inquiries are indeed referred by the Assembly. I do not think it is an issue that warrants our attention as long as it continues to be used in the way it has been to date.

My other point was one that my colleague Mr Berry raised. It was in relation to the powers of committees. Again, Mr Berry makes the very important point that if, a committee deems it appropriate, the committee should be able to call a person to appear and, if necessary, swear him or her to give evidence. I, and I think other members in this place, would be very interested in a debate about just how assertive Assembly committees are.

We certainly have governments of both persuasions that put their views forcefully and very strongly in terms of what they believe should be the evidence that is available to this place and to the broader community to look at in relation to a whole series of issues. I would argue that a similarly forceful approach needs to be taken by this place and its committees in keeping the Government accountable and testing the Government's arguments in a range of different issues.

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