Page 63 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 27 November 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
But the issue from the government’s perspective has always been that the PAC will have a particular workload. The issue that the government has always seen in relation to the structure of committees is that the PAC will have a particularly difficult workload, that it will have to do a lot of work in this Assembly, perhaps more than it has ever done before. Recognising the particularly important scrutiny role that PAC performs, this justifies it having a slightly larger membership.
That is the government’s proposition. That is what I said when I moved the motion. That remains the government’s position, that the membership of the PAC should be larger to reflect the particular importance and workload that it will have to carry, perhaps more distinctly in this Assembly than it would in any other Assembly.
So there is no good faith on the part of those opposite, nor is there any willingness to reflect on the fact that the PAC has a particularly important role to play. For those reasons, Madam Speaker, we do not support the amendment.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (12.25): I think we find ourselves in an unfortunate situation now where, as I alluded to earlier, there was actually no discussion that went on prior to the sitting this morning and we have now Mr Coe’s further amendment.
If everyone wants to do four-member committees, fine, except that now I have just approached Mr Coe and Mr Hanson and they do not want to do the JACS committee. So I am unclear—
Mr Coe: No, no, we are happy to support it.
MR RATTENBURY: Okay. If Mr Coe—I am just receiving an indication that all four of the committees will now be four-member committees. I think there will be a level of consistency at least. I do not think this is a very satisfactory way to be working this out. I think there should have been some earlier conversations. I am happy to adjourn the debate until later this afternoon if members actually want to take a deep breath and go and sort this out. This might be an appropriate way to proceed and take some advice from the Clerk.
I would be prepared to move an adjournment of the debate if the house would prefer that, and we can actually try and sort this out in a sensible manner. On that basis, I will move that the debate be adjourned.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Rattenbury, you cannot move that the debate be adjourned. Somebody else has to move that the debate be adjourned. Somebody who has not spoken needs to move that the debate be adjourned.
Mr Corbell: I ask for leave to speak again in this debate purely to deal with a procedural matter.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Rattenbury, have you finished speaking on this?
Mr Rattenbury: I have, yes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video