Page 270 - Week 01 - Thursday, 17 February 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the treasury bench has only fielded three committee members because the fourth non-executive member was the Speaker. It just cannot happen. Game over; redundant recommendation.
Further, there is the implication that the work of government-nominated members of PAC will do the bidding of the government. I find that an appalling insult. Committee members are parliamentarians and should work on parliamentary committees as servants of the parliament, and not as party hacks. Anyone accusing me of this is invited to do so outside the precinct with a photo of their house, because I will sue for defamation and take that house and give it to charity.
Further, departing from the speech, anybody who accuses me of doing the bidding of the government has got rocks in their head and quite clearly needs some remedial reading lessons so that they can have another good look at the Hansard.
This recommendation enshrines the notion that those opposite and the crossbench are party operatives first and parliamentarians second. And I reject the notion emphatically and with every fibre in my body. Persistence with this recommendation suggests that those opposite and on the crossbench disagree with me, and what a shame that is.
In fact, an examination of the history of committees here will reveal that there was no such suggestion about the place when I was chair of a standing committee, but that a member of the opposition, when a chair, was required to relinquish that position because she had used the position inappropriately. So let us get real.
Finally, there is the notion of constitutionality. This recommendation begs the question as to whether the treatment of one member or a class of members differently is an act which “obstructs or impedes any member in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results”.
Here I refer to House of Representatives Practice, page 726, in which such a process would be regarded as a breach of privilege and, as such, would be a contempt of the parliament. I contend that the prevention of a member from being a chair of a parliamentary committee is discriminatory to such an extent that the discrimination does indeed obstruct or impede such member in the discharge of his or her duty as a member of that parliament. House of Representative Practice, page 726, opens the chapter on breaches of privilege and contempts by referring to the source of its view as section 49 of the constitution. One wonders, therefore, whether a recommendation such as this, accepted by the parliament, that is, the Legislative Assembly, and introduced into its standing orders would therefore be unconstitutional.
There is no doubt in my mind that this recommendation offends the privileges extended to members of this place. It is my recommendation to this Assembly that no action be taken on this recommendation until such time as constitutional legal advice has been sought and obtained and such advice is made available to the Assembly.
That just about does it. I do support much of the report. Again, I thank my colleagues Ms Le Couteur and Mr Smyth for the compromises they have made in gaining a large
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video