Page 1239 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 3 April 2019

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

---

I draw members’ attention to the longstanding practice in the Assembly of committee members avoiding infringing upon active inquiries. I will provide two examples. In 2004 the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment was inquiring into the possibility of an ALDI supermarket being built next to the Belconnen markets. Mrs Dunne, who was the chair of the committee at the time, distributed pamphlets about the matter. The Select Committee on Privileges inquired into this and found against Mrs Dunne. Mrs Dunne stood aside for the remainder of the ALDI inquiry.

Last year I was on the end of life choices select committee. While the committee was conducting its inquiry, the issue of territory rights to legislate on voluntary assisted dying came up in federal parliament. Ms Cheyne, who was on the end of life choices select committee, wanted to speak out on territory rights but was worried about the committee implications of doing so. To overcome this, on 2 August she moved a motion in the Assembly to change the select committee’s terms of reference to include the following:

(8) notwithstanding the provisions of standing order 241, Committee considerations do not preclude Members from publicly discussing Territory rights, including the current Federal legislative restriction on voluntary assisted dying, to allow all Members to comply with that contained within (4) of the unanimously passed Voluntary Assisted Dying motion of 1 November 2017.

Ms Cheyne’s motion of course was passed.

I have sought advice from the Clerk on whether Mr Parton’s motion is in order. I have been advised that it is not out of order but it is disrespectful to the committee. I have also spoken to Mr Parton on this matter and I believe that he has made an honest mistake in moving this motion. I do not believe that he intended in any way to be disrespectful. However, I do believe that the Assembly should be consistent and that there is a clear precedent that suggests that this motion should not proceed at this time. I therefore recommend, members, that this motion be adjourned until after the tabling of the planning and urban renewal standing committee’s report.

Question (by Mr Rattenbury) put:

That the debate be adjourned.

The Assembly voted—

Question resolved in the affirmative.

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video