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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 729 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

I would have loved to have argued in the committee the positions that were put by Mr Hird in that paper after the committee reported; we would have had a great deal of fun in the committee. Who knows, the report might well have been changed in some respects because there would have been a debate about the issues, but we did not have the opportunity in this case. I hope that this will serve as a reminder that we all value the committee process and we want to see the contributions that are made to it given a chance for argument within the committee confines. People have an entitlement to say what they think. I have taken advantage of this entitlement on many occasions. If I do not believe in what is going on in the place, I will be the first to say it and I will try to say it as early as I can. I do not mind having the debate in the committee process, but I do not think that we should have to deal with these sorts of contributions after the event because doing so then does not give us that chance. Mr Speaker, at this point I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Leave granted.

MS TUCKER: I am not wrapping up the debate. I seek leave to speak to the - - -

MR SPEAKER: You will be closing the debate.

MS TUCKER: No, I am seeking leave from the Assembly to respond to the withdrawal of Mr Berry's amendment and to the amendment because I think there are some important issues that need to be covered.

Leave granted.

MS TUCKER: Thank you. I think it is a really important issue. I do notice that Mr Berry has withdrawn his amendment, but, really, what we are talking about here is the committee system of this place. We had a slightly hysterical reaction from Mr Stefaniak last time we debated this, and he repeated it again this morning. Basically we are being accused of being Stalinist, totalitarianism, and having no place in democracy. Okay, let us get down to the real issues here about democracy.

Mr Stefaniak did not address the fundamental concerns that caused Mr Berry to put that amendment to reject Mr Hird's dissenting report. The centre of that concern was that Mr Hird was not working in the way that we expect people to work in committees. We have had discussions in this place recently about how committees work. I remind members that last year Michael Moore recommended in his report to the ACT CPA branch that there be a new standing order which "provides that a committee report is the view of the committee and should not be taken to be either the view of the government or opposition". Basically, Mr Moore's recommendation arose from discussion initiated by a Canadian delegate at a seminar he attended on parliamentary processes. This Canadian delegate queried whether a committee member should be able to go to his party - I would say his or her party but this person did not - for a review of the report before the member adopts the final position. The answer was a resounding no, but that it should be made apparent that a report does not bind either the Government or the Opposition.

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