Page 457 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 23 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
behalf of a party, found expression in the newspaper, and there are people out there in the community who make no distinction, other than to look upon ourselves and say, “Well, what is this person’s primary role?” Therefore there is, in the minds of some people, the possibility that the Speaker has this view, whereas those of us who have bothered to think about it a bit more deeply would think about this as being a spokesman’s role.
I think there is a greying of the two areas and it is of some concern. I do not believe that an officer of the parliament should take part in a policy debate, nor in policy decisions, nor try to influence it, whether tacitly or deliberately. So it had occurred to me, I have to say, yesterday, when I heard the goss around that there was going to be a motion for a privileges committee moved in this place. I considered my own position regarding withdrawing from the considerations of the committee, because I was there during the briefing from ActewAGL around this process, so I withdrew from that committee. I was considering whether I should take part in the privileges committee, and I believe that if there is the slightest suspicion that I have an interest in this then I shall do the right thing and not put myself forward for the privileges committee membership. Such is the case, and I have indicated that to the manager of government business.
I think we need to be very careful here that we do not have an action which can be influential on an outcome of a committee where it can be seen that there is a conflict of interest. I have to tell you that I am having the devil of a job in my own mind about doing this. I will listen to the rest of the debate before making up my mind. I thank Ms Bresnan for bringing forward the amendment regarding the minister, and I will be supporting that.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (11.27): Mr Speaker, I rise to respond to what was quite a meandering and, I think, ridiculous speech that Mr Hargreaves just gave in the chamber. He spoke about the process here. My understanding is that as soon as this matter came before you in your role as Speaker it was quite clear that you felt there was a conflict of interest and therefore you deferred to the Deputy Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker is there for a reason. The reason is obviously to fill in at times when the Speaker cannot be available, but also when situations like this arise. I cannot believe in the history of the Assembly that Speakers have not made statements on particular issues. They are members representing their communities. On a number of occasions over the years I know they have put forward private members’ bills. They have also spoken out when they have seen an injustice or an issue that needed to be raised.
I think that Mr Hargreaves has wandered off into some corner or down some pathway. Today we are focusing on a particular motion around whether or not a privileges committee will be set up. Ms Bresnan has put forward an amendment to that. That is what the debate has been focused on and what it needs to continue to focus on.
I reject Mr Hargreaves’s statement that the office of the Speaker has in some way been undermined or is not operating very well. In fact, if I reflect back to the end-of-year messages and speeches just before the Christmas break, a number of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .