Page 1082 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 6 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We have had the discussion about the different strategies that appear to be looked at to frustrate, to ensure that ultimately the information from the community groups that are getting involved in these committees does not get to the Assembly floor. I have had discussions with Mr Rattenbury on this. I have had discussions with Mr Hanson on this. We have had to look at ways to try to get the committee system to work with four-member committees.
Every time there is a change—and there have been these new changes to standing orders—there is a new tactic implemented to ensure that the committee does not report or that the report cannot be provided. Yes, the government does have an interest in seeing the report about the project facilitation amendment bill. We want to see a report. Yes, I put my hand up. How do we get the report? As part of that discussion, we discussed the fact that the chair’s report—not the content of the report, not what individual members had said, not anything like that—got to a certain point and then the resolution was that you could not table the report.
I do not know how else we could get that done. If that is wrong, getting that report, then by all means look at the standing orders and try to resolve something in this Assembly, because there was no report and we wanted the report. Then the party room took a decision to have a motion to call on the report to be tabled.
Mr Coe: The committee took that decision.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Coe, you are on a warning.
MS GALLAGHER: I am not aware of that, Mr Coe. What I am aware of is that as a party, as a caucus, we wanted to get the chair’s report tabled. I do not think there is any secret there. There are tactics at play. There is dysfunction at play. There are new standing orders at play. Each party room has to respond to this. But that does not involve corruption. That does not involve any member of the committee disclosing any inappropriate information. There was no discussion on the content of the report, the deliberations of the committee, in any detail at all or, indeed, what any of the submissions said or what any of the recommendations said. It was absolutely procedural and appropriate in that sense for us to resolve what to do when order of the day No 1 came to the Assembly.
If that is a problem with the standing orders, then let us fix those standing orders again so that we can actually have the committee report. If this project facilitation legislation is as controversial as you would have us believe—and that may be the case. The Assembly authorised or instigated an inquiry into it. It is controversial. The Assembly has agreed to have a report and then we are in this bizarre situation where the report cannot be table because nobody can agree on it.
That is the origin of the situation that we face in this place today. Mr Corbell has done nothing wrong. He has done nothing wrong and, with the error he made, he corrected that error at the time that it was drawn to his attention, and he was able to do so. This is the slant you put on these things, that Mr Corbell disappeared for two hours and then came back. I was in the chamber all morning; so was Minister Corbell. There
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video