Page 793 - Week 02 - Thursday, 12 February 2009

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

(3) omit paragraphs (5) and (6), substitute:

“(5) Where a document is considered to be privileged:

(a) a return is to be prepared showing the date of creation of the document, a description of the document, the author of the document and reasons for the claim of privilege; and

(b) the documents are to be delivered to the Clerk by the date and time required in the resolution of the Legislative Assembly and:

(i) made available only to Members of the Legislative Assembly; and

(ii) not published or copied without an order of the Assembly.

(6) Any Member may, by communication in writing to the Clerk, dispute the validity of the claim of privilege in relation to a particular document or documents. On receipt of such communication, the Clerk is authorised to release the disputed document or documents to an independent legal arbiter, for evaluation and report within seven calendar days as to the validity of the claim.”.

(4) omit paragraph (9); and

(5) renumber paragraphs accordingly.

Amendments (1) and (2) are simply fixing up the typographical errors. Amendment (5) does the same; it renumbers the paragraphs. The main amendment is amendment (3) which essentially replicates the wording in the New South Wales upper house standing order. Proposed new paragraph (5) says: