Personal Explanation

MEMBERS' REMARKS

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (22:05): I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Do you claim to be misrepresented?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I do. I claim to be misrepresented by the Hons Mr Lawson and Mr Lucas. During the debate on Order of the Day: Private Business No. 30, the Independent Commission Against Corruption Bill, I raised some questions of the mover about quorums, and the Hon. Mr Lawson chirped in with a scathing attack on my understanding of standing orders and caused me great personal hurt. He wounded me tremendously, because I have always been in awe of the Hon. Mr Lawson's wide knowledge of the law and the processes and procedures of this council. The Hon. Mr Lucas was giving him support and barracking from the sidelines. I am not sure whether that will be on the public record, but I would like it noted that he was certainly there attacking my credibility.

I understand that the point the Hon. Mr Lawson was making about standing orders was, in fact, incorrect and that I am correct. The Hon. Mr Lawson was, in fact, referring to the standing orders applying to standing committees of this chamber, not to committees set up under joint standing orders. I refer to the standing orders at page 105, Joint Committees, and No. 3 states:

The number of Members appointed by each House shall be the same—

not eight and three, but the same number. Further, referring to a quorum, No. 4 states:

Each House shall fix the Quorum of its Members—

not the quorum of the committee, but the quorum of its members on the committee—

necessary to be present at all sittings of the Committee; but, subject hereto, a Joint Committee may fix its own Quorum.

I claim that I have been grossly misrepresented during that debate. I do not know what redress I have in the council, but I thought it important to make that plain and put it on the record.