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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Thursday, 19 August 2004) . . Page.. 3966 ..

For that reason, I will not support Mrs Dunne’s amendment, but I do put on the record that I think, especially from what Ms Dundas said—I imagine that Mrs Dunne and the Liberals would be supportive of this as well—that this person is entitled under the resolution to put in a submission again. There is obviously in part of the committee a willingness to look at it. I have sympathy with the concerns that have been raised by Mrs Dunne. I think that it does look like there has been a serious imputation. Whether it is true or not is not the point; we are not looking at that. I will not support the amendment, but I wished to make those points.

MR HARGREAVES (5.26): Responding to Ms Tucker’s point, the committee must address the specific request put to it. We are prevented from putting forward in the chamber the specific request. Were we able to put forward the specific request and not an interpretation of either an individual member or the committee of something else, that would limit the committee in what it could do.

I suggest to you that perhaps that is what we have seen. The course of action that you are proposing is probably appropriate and would address the situation but without being able to say to you that there was a specific thing that was addressed and that was the reason for the report I cannot go into further detail. But I think one can draw the conclusion, because Mrs Dunne has put all this other material to the Assembly, that perhaps those were not the reasons contained in the specific request. I for one believe that all committees need in their recommendations to address the specific requests.

In speaking further to the amendment, I can say that I have not heard anything that lends support to the amendment or which would change the recommendation of the committee to the Assembly. I am conscious that the details of the submission should not be revealed in this chamber and I am satisfied that in the specific matter of Mr Burke’s request the committee took some time and gave careful consideration to ensure that the issue was dealt with fairly. Views were put, definitions challenged and clarification sought. Reference was made to the standing orders and Commonwealth parliamentary practice and a majority conclusion reached.

I do not agree with Mrs Dunne’s dissenting report. I do not accept her amendment. Indeed, I have major problems with the content of her dissenting report. Mrs Dunne said in the dissenting report:

Clearly the Committee did not think the matters could be ruled out under this part of the Standing Orders because of the extensive time they took to deliberate over the matter.

Putting words into the mouth of the committee is no basis for supporting such an assumption. Indeed, the time taken to deliberate over the matter shows how seriously the committee regarded the matter and the level of detail examined by the committee.

It is most unusual for the nature of the deliberations of the committee to be criticised by a member of the committee, particularly over the extent of the deliberations. Apparently, the alternative, according to Mrs Dunne, by extrapolation, is that the committee should only give cursory attention to a claim or a request before the committee, which is something I reject.

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