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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 13 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 3903 ..

MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Cornwell, we are dealing with notice No 1.

MR CORNWELL: Yes, and I am dealing with notice No 1. I was interested in Ms Tucker's comments on it because I think that there needs to be clarification as to why one does not justify being on specific committees. Ms Dundas has come up with some solutions in her motion. They seem to me to be eminently sensible, but it appears that they do not have the agreement of everybody. Therefore, I have to ask: why, of the six standing committees of this Assembly, are only two committees specified-in this case CSSE, as we call it, and the Planning and Environment Committee, because, as Ms Tucker said in her concluding comments, we do not all have a choice as to what committees we would like to be on? This place is not like a lolly shop; you cannot come in here with some money in your pocket and decide that you will buy this or buy that. There are occasions when members are required to go onto committees on which they may not feel exactly comfortable, though I do agree with Ms Tucker that all committees are interesting. If you apply yourself, you can get something out of all committees, whether you go in initially feeling terribly enthusiastic or not.

I think that it is important that members are sufficiently adaptable. We are here to serve the community. Goodness gracious, how often do I hear that expression? I hear it said time and time again. We are here to serve the community, not to serve ourselves. We do not indulge ourselves in what we would like to become involved in terms of committees. Certainly, this side of the chamber does not and I suspect that there are members of the Labor Party who are not on committees with which they are entirely comfortable.

The point I am making here, however, is that this certainly has to apply to the crossbench as well. I must admit, Ms Dundas, that when I saw this motion I thought that agreement had been reached between the three members of the crossbench on this sensible break-up of responsibilities for the crossbench. I am puzzled by Mr Hargreaves' comments about not supporting this motion, because he defended the right of the crossbenchers to work out who should be on which committees and the fact that the government and the opposition should not involve themselves in these matters.

I think that the crossbenchers have done so. If it does not meet the agreement of all members of the crossbench, I suppose the matter should be resolved in the same way as everything else is resolved in this Assembly, that is, by a vote. If nine members believe in one thing and eight in another, so be it. In the case of the crossbench, if two members believe something is acceptable and one does not, so be it.

May I just make the observation that I was pleased to see with Ms Dundas' break-up of responsibilities that we would have a gender balance-Ms Tucker, you know that I am the only person who can stand up and say that in this Assembly-otherwise, the Planning and Environment Committee, for example, would have four women. I do not think that that would be terribly good. I am not sure that it would not be breaching the Discrimination Act or one of the many other acts, such as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act! The truth of the matter is that I think that Ms Dundas' suggestions are eminently suitable.

I agree with my colleague Mr Stefaniak and simply reiterate that we will be supporting these proposed amendments.

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