Parliamentary Procedure

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE WITNESSES

The SPEAKER (14:52): In response to the member for Waite's earlier point of order, I have this advice from the secretariat of the Public Works Committee. It states:

Rod Hook was neither 'summonsed' nor indeed 'summoned' to appear before the PWC. As is regular practice, DPTI, as the agency appearing before the Committee, upon notifying the Committee they would be bringing a project as per the Parliamentary Committees Act provided a list of witnesses who would appear at the hearing.

The Committee's User Guide to Agencies outlines the process that applied here:

'The committee has power to summon witnesses, compel them to attend and to produce relevant documents. This power is rarely used. Usually the Committee invites persons or organisations to provide relevant documents and make written or oral submissions.'

Prior to the meeting Mr Hook's office notified me, as Committee Executive Officer, that Mr Hook would not be able to appear as he had another meeting he was obliged to attend; in his absence another of the listed witnesses, an Executive Director directly involved in the proposed project, would be leading the presentation.

It was also suggested Mr Hook may arrive late if his other obligation ended early enough. (In the end, this did not happen).

Another witness attended who was at Project Director level.

Both witnesses were competent to provide information on the project.

Consulting the Minutes and Hansard, Mr Hook's absence was described as 'disappointing' and it was asserted that the presence of Department CEOs was desirable at PWC meetings, but it was not specifically raised as a possible contempt of the Committee.

I would add to that, as a matter of procedure, a report from the committee would be required to initiate action for contempt, and we do not have such a report.