Page 595 - Week 02 - Thursday, 20 March 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Our concerns are these. We have a strong concern that, as I have said, the amendment would mean that there will not be able to be a report. And, as I have said, it is a move away from the House of Representatives Practice that we should not allow a committee, where they do not agree, to have their views on an inquiry heard.
In this Assembly, we have seen so far—I think I have done the calculation correctly—29 inquiries by committees, including the scrutiny committee, which I think is very important, and a similar number of reports. It is my view that all the committees have completed their tasks as requested by the many resolutions that the Assembly has taken to form committees and conduct inquiries. But I understand some members are not happy with the process, especially in relation to the process on two out of those 29 reports.
Let us just have a look at that for a moment. Let us have a look at the evidence before us here today. There is comment from Mrs Dunne that the committees are not working appropriately. The evidence shows that that is not quite the case. With 29 inquiries and 29 reports, two reports have some contention about them. So, overarchingly, the committee system is working. As to the number of committee members, as I have said in a previous address to this Assembly, four-member committees are nothing new; they have occurred many times in the past and represent the representation on the floor of the chamber.
Also, there is an issue here that, if this report is adopted, the Assembly will need to look at current and future resolutions for appointment to committee inquiries and the committees themselves. At the moment, it is resolved that the committee will inquire into a particular topic, be it annual reports or something else, and then report to the committee. If the standing orders say that if you cannot reach agreement you cannot report to the committee, do we need to change the way we make resolutions?
I have said what I need to say in regard to this. I am disappointed that there is a change coming in what Mrs Dunne sees as “gaming the standing orders”; however, she is supporting a move to change the standing orders in this report. As I have said, the government will not be supporting the motion.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for Workplace Safety and Industrial Relations and Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development) (10.38): To expand a little further on comments that my colleague Mr Gentleman has made, let me say that the government is not convinced that the proposals recommended by the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure are needed at this time. Mr Gentleman has outlined the rationale behind that. We are comfortable with the proposals the Assembly previously adopted, proposed by Dr Bourke in an earlier sitting this year. We believe that we should allow that exercise and those changes to run their course. The government also acknowledges that clearly there is a majority on the floor that wishes to proceed with the proposals put forward by Mr Smyth. The government will be indicating its concerns with those proposals, but obviously we recognise that we will have to see how these proposals play out.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video