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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 10 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 2925 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

I don't remember Mr Hird-the only member of the former government's backbench and a member of every single committee-saying that he needed to have this sort of thing. What he said, if I remember him quite clearly enough, was that we needed more people-more physical people to take part in this thing. So I find an inconsistency here. And I find another difficulty. I know the expense is not going to be great. When we talk about electronic communication it can be by internet or it can be by telephone. That is not free. I don't care whether it costs $15 or $1,500-it is a cost.

And we find that the people supporting this position-not all of them, I have to say-are suggesting constantly that this Assembly costs too much. There is all this criticising and carping. If a pay rise is given, there is a bellyache about that. If there is a business-class trip to Adelaide, they will bellyache about that. And yet, without the blink of an eye, they can propose something here which is a bit open-ended-because there is nothing here which suggests that the Speaker ought to approve a level of expenditure for committees on this work.

Now, on the process, I take exception also to the suggestion that committees cannot determine how to operate their own work. The reason why we have standing orders at all in this place is to set down some guidelines on exactly how we go about doing things. And it is something which is agreed amongst all the parties, or at least by a majority ruling in this chamber. Even if I disagree with the politics of this motion-or agree; it matters not-the process gives me some concern. It just says that, when a committee decides to do it, it can happen. And we're saying, "Oh, they might not act in good faith? You ratbags; you can't say that." Well, it wouldn't be the first time a committee has acted in bad faith in this Assembly. And the reason they were constructed the way they were in the very first part of this Assembly was to take away the possibility of that ever happening-we hope-and I thought it had worked quite successfully.

I would like to see the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure look at this and come back to the Assembly and report to us. The reason I say that is that we do not have any guidelines under which committees can function. What happens if we have a committee made up completely of brand new members?

Ms MacDonald: The Education Standing Committee.

MR HARGREAVES: The Education Standing Committee. All three members of it are brand new members. Thank you, Ms MacDonald. They are brand new members in this place who would not have a command of standing orders just yet. They do not have a clue on how things work in this place just yet-until they've been in the place for six months or so.

Such a set of guidelines would be absolutely clear for the new chair for that committee, and it is not a problem. So it is not a case of hemming people in; it is actually giving people a direction. A second thing is that, in my view, this sort of change in the processes for the activities of committee work ought to be accompanied by a change in standing orders. My understanding is that it is the responsibility of the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure to promote changes to the standing orders in this chamber. So I think that is the right place to go if standing orders ought to be changed to facilitate this.

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