Page 1397 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 13 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the day versus the sorts of things that I think this Assembly should very rightly be concerned about—that is, where members go to a colleague or some other person and say, “Look the committee is deliberating on this matter. What do you think we should do?” That would be inappropriate and we all recognise that is not the way committees are supposed to work. It is quite different in the course of a tactical discussion to talk about how one should play the matter out on a particular day.
I certainly do not think that, when it comes to the standing orders, there was any substantial obstruction of the performance of the committee’s functions. By the time Minster Corbell had made his remarks, the committee had finished its deliberations. The committee had done its business and Mr Gentleman had presented his report to the Assembly. The matter was dealt with. If Mr Wall and Mr Coe—as was reported to the Assembly this morning—felt in some way that they had been obstructed, I find that quite remarkable. It is simply not the case. The committee had finished its business, so to suggest there had been an obstruction in the performance of their functions simply does not meet the threshold of standing order 278.
That is the key basis upon which I formed my view not to support this privilege motion—that is, to actually look at the words of the standing order, to look at the threshold it sets and the sorts of measures it calls for and to reflect on the fact that I believe there is another remedy here, which is for the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure to consider the standing orders and whether they accurately reflect the situation. My sense is that if a privileges committee was formed here—and that is a very serious matter—the privileges committee would find that nobody indicated they had inappropriately released information. As the committee has already informed the Assembly today, not one of the committee members indicated they had released the information. I do not see how the Privileges Committee would find anything further.
There is an alternative remedy here, which is that the administration and procedures committee examine this. In all likelihood a privileges committee would simply come back and say that we need to review the standing orders. Let us just get on with that and do the job that needs to be done.
MR HANSON (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (3.41): I commend Mr Coe for bringing this motion forward. In response to what Mr Rattenbury just said, let me say that he is trying to trivialise this and say that there is no case to answer, but if you refer to the standing orders, standing order 277, “Matters constituting contempt”, 277(p)(iii), says:
(p) Unauthorised disclosure of evidence …
A person shall not, without the authority of the Assembly or a committee, publish or disclose …
(iii) any proceedings in private session of the … committee or any report of such proceedings;
unless the … committee has published, or authorised the publication of, that document …
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video