Page 1403 - Week 04 - Thursday, 12 April 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Point (4) also gives the date for reporting back as the first day of July 2018. There has been considerable backwards and forwards discussion about an appropriate date for this. There are two things. Obviously, from the point of view of having this as something which can be considered in the context of the budget and the estimates process, we want the committee to report as soon as possible, and the next week would be great. But also we have to look at reality in terms of what the privileges committee, if one is set up, could feasibly do. This seems like the best compromise between the needs of allowing PAC to finalise its report, if it is in a position to do so. Of course, it is possible that it will be found that it is not in that position. I do not know; obviously, I have no idea what the findings of the privileges committee would be. But this is a compromise between that and giving the privileges committee enough time to do its investigative work, as Ms Cody so rightly said yesterday.
In this instance, the privileges committee, I believe, does have a body of work to undertake to determine whether standing orders were breached and what the impact was on the PAC inquiry. None of us here knows the answer to that. I commend my motion to the Assembly. I am hopeful that, given the considerable amount of discussion about it, it will be accepted by members with the amendment which will shortly be moved.
MR WALL (Brindabella) (4.15): This is not the opposition’s preference for the way that this matter be dealt with. We feel as though this question could have been addressed through the admin and procedures committee looking at the privilege implications of any possible contempt implications of not just the have your say website tool but also that used by UnionsACT as part of the education, employment and youth affairs committee. However, we are realists in this instance, and we recognise that that is not the direction that the Assembly is going in today. I move the following amendment to Ms Le Couteur’s amendment:
Omit paragraph (6), substitute:
“(6) the membership of the Committee is to be Ms Cheyne (Government), Mr Rattenbury (Crossbench), Mr Wall (Opposition).”.
This is an administrative fix-up to make life easier for everyone. The amendment moved by Ms Le Couteur calls for nominations to be notified to the Speaker by 4 pm. However, 4 pm has already passed today. It seeks to appoint the membership of the committee, being Ms Cheyne from the government, Mr Rattenbury from the crossbench and me on behalf of the opposition. That saves the procedural matter where the manager of government business needs to move an amendment once those nominations are put forward, given the likelihood that we will go straight to the adjournment.
Mr Wall’s amendment to Ms Le Couteur’s proposed amendment agreed to.
MADAM SPEAKER: The question now is that Ms Le Couteur’s amendment, as amended, be agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video