Page 2687 - Week 09 - Thursday, 8 August 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
But that was the situation. What then happened at the eleventh hour is that we were stitched up. There was a swiftie done by the government and the Greens so that PAC had two government members and two opposition members. At the eleventh hour we were presented with that and, following that, there was a debate in this place that resulted in all committees having two government members and two opposition members.
It is worth noting that that was a pretty low act from the government and the Greens to have pulled that swiftie—to try and essentially stymie the opposition’s ability to scrutinise the government, hold it to account and find the truth about what is going on with the government. That is such a fundamental role of the committees, and that was done in such a shonky manner, essentially, without any forewarning.
We now find ourselves in a position where we have two government members and two non-government members on each of the committees. I do not think anyone thinks that this is working particularly effectively. Certainly, if we look at the results of the estimates committee, instead of much of the debate revolving around the actual fundamentals of the budget, there has actually been an argy-bargy between the government and the opposition on the structure of committees. You would argue it probably has not been particularly edifying; it has not enhanced the reputation of the Assembly and it has not advanced the cause of what we are all trying to achieve here.
I note that that view is not mine alone; it was shared in a tweet yesterday by Caroline Le Couteur, a former member of the Greens in this place, who said, “Now we know how two Lib, two ALP member committees in the ACT will work: not well.” Certainly there are Greens members who did not take ministries who have looked at this and said, “Yeah, this doesn’t work. It ain’t working.” So that is the view of Caroline Le Couteur.
Perhaps more importantly, I wrote to the Clerk about this matter and asked him for his advice, and he presented me with that advice. I sent that about three months ago to Mr Rattenbury and to the Chief Minister as well. I can summarise his advice, which I am happy to table for members. I seek leave to table the advice that was provided to me by the Clerk.
Leave granted.
MR HANSON: I present the following paper:
Standing committees—Membership—Copy of advice from the Clerk, dated 23 May 2013.
In summary, I asked a number of questions, including what has been the past practice. The Clerk’s advice was that it is set out at page 293 of the Companion, which states that the established practice currently is to have three members on each standing committee. Further, I asked what has been the past practice in terms of backbenchers serving on committees, and the advice was that the practice of the Assembly has been that there has normally been one government member for each committee, along with one opposition member. Obviously, you would also normally see a member of the Greens party or an independent.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video