Page 1351 - Week 04 - Thursday, 4 April 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
conducted. Indeed, her motion today outlines her requirements even further when she proposes to dictate how evidence should be heard and recorded.
I know standing orders may not be everyone’s bedside reading, but for a minister in this place I consider a working knowledge of them to be a prerequisite for doing your job effectively and lawfully. That is why I now move the amendment to the minister’s motion which has been circulated:
Omit paragraph (3).
The Canberra Liberals have serious concerns about the minister’s motion. The motion as written by the minister creates a dangerous precedent. Effectively dictating to a committee of this Assembly how it should conduct an inquiry and directing the committee that evidence be received and taken only in camera and only on a confidential basis is a significant over-reach on her part. The motion as it stands would undermine a committee process, if not be an outright insult to the power, privileges and independence of a committee. It implies that the minister does respect the committee’s judgement and discretion, which begs the question why she is bothering to refer the issue to the committee in the first place. Committees of this chamber have always been highly respectful of and sensitive to the privacy of witnesses, particularly vulnerable witnesses, and the wording of the referral should not allege that they would be anything but.
It is extremely disappointing that the Greens, after days of saying that they agree it may set a dangerous precedent, have decided to do what they do best—that is, back their coalition partner, at the cost of a real risk of infringing on our robust committee structure that we can lay claim to being the envy of many other parliaments. It is extraordinarily hypocritical that only yesterday the Greens, together with their political partner, gagged debate on Mr Parton’s motion on something as important and impacting as many people as development applications. How laughable that Mr Rattenbury accused the opposition only yesterday of wanting to change the practice when it suits us. How laughable and how hypocritical when this is exactly what he is doing. All he wants to do is help his political partner in doing this.
My amendment is to ensure that the spirit of the minister’s motion is retained—that is, to ensure that the Assembly’s Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Youth Affairs has the opportunity to inquire into this serious matter—but it preserves the independence of the committee. I commend my amendment to the Assembly.
MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong) (11.32): We will be supporting this referral to the committee today. There has obviously been extensive debate in this place already on these matters. Certainly, I cast back to some of my earlier comments: this is obviously a concerning issue. It is one that is distressing for the families involved, for the schools involved, for the staff involved. I think it is an issue that we are not going to solve quickly, but it is one we must work quickly to seek to resolve. That is no easy challenge. It is one that has been around for some time, but I certainly think that the work that is already underway is important.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video