Page 1354 - Week 04 - Thursday, 4 April 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
safe and supported but we need to be aware that, in the small city that we live in that is Canberra, it is very easy to piece together which children are being discussed and in which school.
We want to create an environment of understanding, openness and reconciliation, not a witch-hunt. In-camera evidence, where suitable, will do this and ensure that all children involved are protected and that no schools are demonised. The committee should, and I suspect will, hold public hearings. But we must be very cognisant of our responsibility to protect those in our community who are vulnerable. This is about listening and validating the concerns of students and parents, not a public witch-hunt. I support the referral unamended.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (11.41): I rise to speak in support of Ms Lee’s amendment, which is most welcome. When I saw the motion proposed by Ms Berry, I was very surprised by the inclusion of paragraph (3), which Ms Lee’s amendment seeks to remove. I was also quite pleased to hear from Ms Lee in the course of the week that there was some negotiation about this point, because it raises considerable concern for me. Despite what Ms Lee thinks, I do not have the Companion to the standing orders on my bedside table for night-time reading. Firstly, it is too heavy. If it knocked you on the head, you would wake up.
However, I will refer members to the companion in relation to the publication of evidence and other documents in committee. I am doing this because I think the precedent that we possibly create today if we do not delete paragraph (3) from this motion is very important. While I say that we must delete paragraph (3) from this motion, this does not in any way detract from the importance of the issue. This is really about the standing orders and the power of the committee.
I am not debating the important matter that will come before the inquiry. Ms Lee, Ms Berry, Mr Pettersson and Mr Rattenbury have discussed that. This is about the imposition that this potentially makes and the precedent—the unwelcome precedent—that this would create of instructing a committee in how to conduct an inquiry.
As a former Speaker, I am quite surprised that another former Speaker, in the form of Mr Rattenbury, would not be alive to the issues in this instance. I think it is very important for members to reflect upon what is said in the companion about the role of committees. It begins by saying:
Providing public access to parliament and informing the public are two of the most significant roles of parliamentary committees. Public participation in committee inquiries takes place primarily through the provision of submissions and participation in public hearings. Standing orders seek to balance the competing demands of necessary confidentiality and desirable public access and openness in the conduct of committee business.
It being 45 minutes after the commencement of Assembly business, the debate was interrupted in accordance with standing order 77. Ordered that the time allotted to Assembly business be extended by 30 minutes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video