Page 2910 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 14 August 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
are two mentions in paragraph 2 specifically about the AAT matter, which is subject to appeal. Ms Stephen-Smith makes the point that she was concerned about the rules, which were referred to in paragraph 2(c). My concern is that in paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b) we are specifically referring to an AAT matter.
If Mrs Stephen-Smith is correct and the issues are about the rules and not about a specific case, it could be amended to remove those two paragraphs. Then we would be free and clear and there would be no question about sub judice. Could I let that sit with you—
MADAM SPEAKER: Yes.
Mrs Dunne: Could I suggest that we adjourn this matter for a later hour today while that matter is sorted out?
MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you. For the interest of members, I was looking at paragraph 2(b) in particular and at an option to actually remove that from the motion, in which case we could get on with the quite principled discussion that everyone in the Assembly appears to think is a worthy discussion and debate to be had. Would removing paragraph 2(b) be satisfactory?
Mrs Dunne: Paragraphs 2(a) and (b).
Mr Rattenbury: Paragraph 2(a) is a statement of fact.
Ms Cody: Paragraph 2(a) is a statement of fact.
Mrs Dunne: But it is still hinges on the issues of comity.
Ms Cheyne: Does it? No, it is not commentary.
Mrs Dunne: No, comity; not commentary.
MADAM SPEAKER: My position is that I think we could progress with the removal of paragraph 2(b) and allow this important discussion to continue. Mr Gentlemen, did you have something further to add to my view?
Mr Gentleman: Yes, I did, Madam Speaker. I want to raise in the discussion continuing resolution No 10. It starts with, “Subject to the discretion of the chair”.
MADAM SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr Gentleman: It is your discretion. I think it is a long bow to be calling here for sub judice. In relation to Mrs Dunne’s points, it is not interfering with the judiciary, as Minister Stephen-Smith has made very clear. I would also suggest that it is open to Mrs Dunne and Mr Wall to bring amendments if they do not support paragraph 3(b) in Ms Cody’s motion.
Mr Wall: It is also in the power of the Speaker to ask that it be amended.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video