Page 2597 - Week 07 - Thursday, 2 August 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
to the practice that I have observed in this place and the culture that exists around committees—I, and a number of members, have observed this over the years—there is generally a sense that once you are on a committee and looking at something, you should not speak publicly about it.
There have been occasions both in the chamber and outside when members have felt very curtailed from making a comment. I think the practice has built up and there has been an acceptance that if you are on a committee, you do not make an observation.
As I say, I think Mrs Dunne is perhaps right in a “letter of the law” interpretation, but the practice of this place has been different. The fact that Ms Cheyne has brought forward this proposal is probably wise in the sense that if she wants to be able to participate in the public discourse on that matter, and given the practice that has developed in this place, it is better to do it with the explicit endorsement of this chamber than to run the risk of the prospect of finding yourself in here on a contempt proposition.
I think that the admin and procedure committee needs to look at this matter more thoroughly, as part of the review of standing orders. I know there are proposals to do that. Certainly, there will be some more discussion of this matter. The Greens will be supporting this motion today on the basis that that is our interpretation of what the practice has been; therefore we think it is better to be explicit in this case.
MRS KIKKERT (Ginninderra) (10.43): I rise today to speak on the motion from Tara Cheyne. To be honest, I am offended to read the motion and for her to bring it into the chamber because it was not discussed in the committee at all. It is a five-member committee. It is not a one member, two, three or four-member committee. It is a five-member committee.
For her to bring it into the chamber without discussing it with everybody on the committee is offensive and completely rude. I think that she is hijacking committee members and also this inquiry into end of life choices. I urge her to stop doing it because it is completely wrong. Stop hijacking it. It is not an inquiry for herself. It is an inquiry for all Canberrans, including five members of the committee, not just herself. She should have done the right thing and brought it to the committee, where Vicki and I, as well as Caroline and Bec Cody, and Ms Cheyne herself, could sit down as five adults and talk about this issue, rather than hijacking the issue and bringing it into the chamber. Stop doing it. That is all I have to say.
MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you, Mrs Kikkert. Just a reminder: when you are referring to people, can you use their full name and title.
Mrs Kikkert: Yes, thank you.
MS CHEYNE (Ginninderra) (10.45), in reply: I do not have too much to say. I would like to thank the Greens for their support for this motion. I do think it is a bit rich for Mrs Dunne to talk about courtesy, given the form that the Canberra Liberals have in this place. Mrs Kikkert’s politicisation of the issue goes directly to underlining all the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video