Page 54 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 9 December 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
As has been outlined, a central theme of the amendments is to ensure better government accountability and greater legislative scrutiny by the Assembly. The previous Assembly, a majority government, did not do a good job on this front. Consultation and consideration of different views did not feature highly. Amendments to the functions of Assembly committees and the inputs they have on the decision-making process will be an important part of this Assembly. Provision requiring government responses to committee reports is essential, given the new and expanded roles for committees in the Seventh Assembly.
It should also be remembered that this is only the beginning of the reform. There are two important amendments which are not reflected in this motion: a requirement that all government amendments to bills be considered by the scrutiny of bills committee unless the Assembly agrees the amendment is of an urgent, minor or merely technical nature; and, secondly, a mechanism to resolve disputes for orders of papers, through the provision of an independent arbiter to determine whether a claim of executive privilege is legitimate, such as is provided for in the New South Wales upper house. These amendments will be moved in the February sitting, giving us time to ensure we are fully aware of the way they are to be implemented and function in the new Assembly.
I would like to finish on the note that this Assembly is in the very unique position of being not only governed by its rules but also making them. We are the ones, through the Speaker, who must apply the rules as well as adhere to them in our conduct. I very much hope that this Assembly respects and uses the standing orders to the fullest extent possible to achieve the best outcome for people of the ACT.
The Greens support the amendment that I believe is going to be moved by Mrs Dunne. It does make sense that matters of public importance be included on the morning’s notice paper and it helps all of us and our staff prepare for the day. It is not onerous and most of us would be submitting MPIs the night before anyway.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (12.05): I thank Ms Le Couteur for her contribution because it sets in context this motion that is being moved today. We would not be seeing this motion if we were still in the throes of a majority Stanhope Labor government. I thought that the gritted teeth through which the minister said that he embraced these changes was ironic. I think that there is a political treatise to be written on whether you can embrace political change whilst being held in at least a half-nelson.
The opposition supports the changes to the standing orders. I think that, for the most part, they are very welcome. The substantive changes, especially to question time and particularly creating some accountability for ministers in relation to government responses to committee reports, are most welcome indeed. I have not quite had the opportunity to explore whether the new standing order 245A will have effect in relation to committee reports which are outstanding from as far away as 2004 and which have still not been responded to by this government. I look forward to the committee chairs being able to test that in the coming days.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .