Error of judgement leaves Clarence Valley Council's reputation in the wind

It has been known for some weeks now that there was a document, filed as part of its 2013 annual Code of Conduct Complaints Report, being displayed on Clarence Valley Council’s own website which appeared to suggest that an unnamed councillor had been found to have breached council’s Code of Conduct and that investigating this alleged breach had cost council $14,900.

This same council document is also permanently itemised by Google’s search engine, linked to on local social media and displayed on Scribd.

Even the most cursory of investigations quickly established a link between it and an article in The Daily Examiner on 18 October 2013 titled Review of conflict claim cost $14,900.

Cr. Andrew Baker currently has a motion before Clarence Valley Council’s Governance & Corporate Committee, which in part seeks an apology from the most senior council officer for allowing publication of incorrect information concerning the outcome of a code of conduct complaint.

An excerpt from Item 15.011/14, in Clarence Valley Council’s Governance & Corporate Committee business paper of 10 June 2014 at Page 56, clearly demonstrates the attitude being taken by management to its own error of judgement in allowing publication:

COMMENTS FROM GENERAL MANAGER

1. The report to Council’s Governance and Corporate Committee on 12 November 2013, item 14.167/13 titled Code of Conduct Complaints Report 2012/13, correctly summarises the complaints and dealings that have occurred in relation to Council’s Code of Conduct for the period.

2. The statistical document for submission to the Office of Local Government however had some clerical errors in it.

3. The statistical return is a numerical summary only and does not mention any names or refer to any specific matter or investigation.

4. The statistical document was forwarded as required to the Office of Local Government.

5. The Office of Local Government has not yet published the collective statistics for NSW.

6. The Office of Local Government has been advised of the errors and an amended statistical return has been provided.

7. Council has been advised by the Office of Local Government that the correct statistical information has been now included in their records.

8. The Office of Local Government in the near future is expected to publish the collective statistics for Code of Conduct complaints which will include the correct statistics for Clarence Valley Council.

9. A search of local media has failed to identify where this issue has been published or reported.

10. I consider that this matter is now resolved.

It is also important for Councillors to be aware of their responsibility under Part 8 of the Code of Conduct (“the Code”). Part 8 relates to the importance of preserving the integrity of the Code.

Clause 8.1 of the Code expressly states:

You must not conduct yourself in a manner that is likely to undermine confidence in the integrity of this code or its administration.

In effect, this means that if a Councillor believes a breach of the code may have occurred, they have an obligation to make a formal complaint so the matter can be assessed and administered according to the code’s guidelines. Any different action has the potential to deny the code’s fundamental principles of fairness and equity, and could be in breach of Part 8.

Point (2) of the proposed motion includes the wording “the most senior Council officer responsible for the errors in reporting, described in part 1 of this motion, be invited to include an apology to Councillors….”. A motion seeking an apology could be viewed as an attempt to impose a penalty against an officer for an alleged but unproven wrongdoing. In the absence of proper due process, such a motion would be denial of natural justice as well as procedural fairness and equity, as detailed in Part 3 of the Code. As such a Council resolution containing such a statement without correct process in accordance with the Code being afforded may give rise to a complaint against those voting for the motion for failing in their obligations in accordance with Part 8.

Scott Greensill

GENERAL MANAGER

At the time of writing this post, the said document (set out below) could still be found at http://clarence.nsw.gov.au/cp_content/resources/14.167-13%281%29.pdf,  http://www.clarence.nsw.gov.au/cp_themes/metro/page.asp?p=DOC-XCC-37-21-03 and http://clarence.nsw.gov.au/cp_content/resources/14.167-13(1).pdf:

NSW DEPARTMENT OF PREMIER AND CABINET Division of Local Government, Code of Conduct Complaints Report. Repo... by clarencegirl

It could also still be found on the Google search engine index:

As well as remaining on social media here and here as a par by this blog.

Despite these numerous published mentions, Clarence Valley Council’s General Manager appears to think that informing the Division of Local Government that it needed to emend its copy of the document is the only action required.

He considers “that this matter is now resolved”.

So it seems that this document published separately from the 16 October 2012 Resolution 13.180/12 (therefore allowing no context and suggestive of wrong doing on the part of an unnamed councillor) is to remain permanently uncorrected as part of council’s own electronic records displayed online and, remain easily available on the Internet to anyone around the world to potentially misinterpret.

What a strange and unsatisfactory way to resolve this matter. 

At the very least the General Manger should emend council’s own records and then seek the advice of council’s website administrator as to how to permanently remove all traces of the offending document from the Internet.

As Clarence Valley Council’s most senior officer he should also give serious consideration to apologising for a situation created on his watch.

Mary O'Kane goes to bat for science and an environmental rehabilitation fund for those instances when the NSW gas industry causes long-term negative impacts on the environment

NSW Government Chief Scientist & Engineer:

Chief Scientist & Engineer calls for tougher insurance regime for CSG industry

NSW Chief Scientist & Engineer Mary O'Kane has recommended the State Government strengthen industry insurance requirements to guard against possible environmental damage from CSG activities.

She has also recommended the NSW Government consider establishing an environmental rehabilitation fund to address unforeseen or long-term environmental impacts and remediation. 

Professor O'Kane, who is continuing her independent review of CSG activities in NSW, says stricter insurance requirements are needed.

"CSG extraction is a relatively new industry in NSW and it is one that is largely under-protected," Professor O'Kane said.

"There is no standard approach to insurance coverage within the CSG industry, and the take-up of coverage by operators is uneven at best.

"There is also presently no mechanism to address unforeseen and/or long-term environmental impacts attributed to gas extraction – and that is why I have recommended the Government consider establishing an environmental rehabilitation fund, similar to that set up by the WA Government for its mining industry," she said.

The research – undertaken for the Review by Hicksons Lawyers and Piper Alderman – raised other issues, including:

* a lack of strict insurance requirements on the relatively new but fast-growing industry has left it under-insured

* third party insurance taken up by companies does not protect the insured, nor does it extend to natural resource damage

* there is no legislative requirement for companies to take out insurance

* the requirement for companies to provide financial assurance is at the discretion of NSW Trade & Investment

* security deposits typically only cover the cost of on-site rehabilitation at the cessation of operations, not beyond the tenement or any long-term impacts

* comprehensive pollution legal liability insurance is now available in the market which covers pollution and natural resource damage on and off site

* the Western Australia's Mining Rehabilitation Fund  would be a good model for government to pursue in the form of a CSG rehabilitation fund to maximise coverage for long term and unforeseen environmental impacts

* strengthening the environmental risk assessment of projects at application stage should be given appropriate consideration

Professor O'Kane's report to Government, "Environmental risk & responsibility and insurance arrangements for the NSW CSG industry", can be downloaded here.

The papers by Hicksons Lawyers and Piper Alderman can be viewed here.

NSW Office of Coal Seam Gas rejects Metgasco Limited's 'evidence' that it has conducted community consultation with regard to its plan to drill for tight gas at Bentley

NSW Government Coal Seam Gas Statement on Metgasco

Metgasco - petroleum exploration licence 16

Status of Rosella exploration well activity approval

On 14 May 2014 the Office of Coal Seam Gas OCSG put a hold on Metgasco's approval to drill an exploration well at Bentley, near Casino in the Northern Rivers, on the basis that the company was not in compliance with its community consultation obligations under Petroleum Exploration Licence 16 (PEL 16).

Metgasco Ltd wrote to the OCSG on 15 May 2014 requesting that the OCSG review its decision of 14 May 2014.

Metgasco provided the OCSG with additional material about its community consultation activities for the proposed drilling of the Rosella Exploration Well to consider as part of the review.

OCSG met with Metgasco on 16 May 2014 to discuss the regulator's decision of 14 May 2014 and the company's submission.

The OCSG has reviewed this additional material. At this stage, the decision of 14 May 2014 still stands, given the company has not effectively and genuinely engaged with the community or put in place an appropriate community consultation plan in accordance with the Guideline for community consultation requirements for exploration ("the Guideline").

OCSG has informed Metgasco of this and given the company a further 7 days to make any further submissions. A final decision on review will be made following full consideration of any further submissions.

The OCSG has maintained an ongoing dialogue with Metgasco in relation to this matter.

Compliance with Community Consultation Condition

Community consultation and engagement is a key element of the regulatory framework for petroleum exploration projects in NSW.

This is reflected in the imposition of a specific condition on petroleum exploration licences (PELs) issued under the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991 (the Act). The conditions make it mandatory for petroleum exploration licence holders to "engage with the community in relation to the planning for and conduct of prospecting operations". This condition is supported by a guideline: Guideline for community consultation requirements for exploration (the Guideline).

In addition, licence holders must report on compliance with the above condition annually.

The OCSG acknowledges that some sections of the community are opposed to the development of a gas industry for a variety reasons. We do not expect licence holders such as Metgasco to be able to change their view points.

We do however expect that licence holders such as Metgasco will develop a detailed consultation plan in compliance with the Guideline and demonstrate an ability to effectively and genuinely engage with the community.

The plan should be appropriate to the circumstances of the case and include a detailed analysis of stakeholder groups in the Richmond Valley, Kyogle Shire and Lismore City Council areas.

The OCSG has advised Metgasco that works could be recommenced under the activity approval once an acceptable community consultation plan is in place and the company demonstrates an ability to appropriately engage with the community, in compliance with relevant obligations under PEL 16.

Metgasco Limited has responded to this stance by the Office of Coal Seam Gas by requesting it to temporarily suspend its review and advising the Office that the mining exploration company considers its actions to be unlawful.

NSW ICAC finds Obeid, Tripodi, Dunn engaged in corrupt conduct

NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption media release 5 June 2014:

 Findings of corrupt conduct

Operation Cabot

The ICAC found that Edward Obeid Sr engaged in corrupt conduct by misusing his position as a member of Parliament (MP) to benefit his family's financial interests by improperly influencing Steve Dunn, a senior bureaucrat formerly within the Department of Water and Energy (DWE) in the discharge of Mr Dunn's public official duties. The nature of the improper influence was that:

* Mr Dunn was to use his contacts at the DWE to seek information about water licences in the Bylong Valley for Edward Obeid Sr and to facilitate Edward Obeid Sr speaking with a DWE official to obtain further information about water licences affecting Cherrydale Park

* Mr Dunn was to use his position within NSW Maritime and his former position with the DWE to reassure the owner of Cherrydale Park, John Cherry, that there were no plans to place restrictions on  Cherrydale Park water licences so that Mr Cherry would not reduce the amount he would lend the Obeid family for the purchase of that property.

Edward Obeid Sr also engaged in corrupt conduct by misusing his position and influence as an MP to benefit his family's financial interests by engaging then DWE director-general Mark Duffy so that, in the carrying out his official functions, Mr Duffy would unwittingly fulfil Edward Obeid Sr's expectations that his financial interests with respect to the water licences affecting Cherrydale Park would be favoured.

Operation Meeka

The Commission found that Edward Obeid Sr engaged in corrupt conduct by misusing his position as an MP to further his own interests by arranging for finance minister Michael Costa to meet with businessmen Paul Dundon and Mitchell Corn for the purposes of them promoting Direct Health Solutions Pty Ltd (DHS) to the NSW Government so as to benefit DHS and without disclosing the Obeid family's financial interest in DHS.

Operation Cyrus

The Commission that the Hon Edward Obeid engaged in corrupt conduct by misusing his position as an MP:

* in about 2000 to make representations to minister the Hon Carl Scully that Mr Scully should benefit Circular Quay leaseholders by ensuring they were offered new leases with five-year terms and options for renewal for five years at a time when Mr Obeid was influenced in making the representations by knowing that Circular Quay leaseholders had donated $50,000 to the Australian Labor Party as payment for carrying out of what they understood to be a promise that their interests as leaseholders would be looked after by the government

* between 2003 and 2006 by making representations to ministers Michael Costs and the Hon Eric Roozendaal to change government policy to allow for direct negotiations for new leases with existing Circular Quay leaseholders rather than proceed with an open tender process and deliberately failing to disclose to them that his family had interests in Circular Quay leases and would benefit from such a change in policy

* to benefit his family's financial interests by making representations to the Hon Joseph Tripodi and Steve Dunn to pressure them to change government policy to allow for direct negotiations for new leases with existing Circular Quay leaseholders rather than proceed with an open tender process.

The ICAC found that Mr Tripodi engaged in corrupt conduct in 2007 by deliberately failing to disclose to his Cabinet colleagues his awareness of the Obeid family's financial interests in Circular Quay leases, knowing that those interests would benefit from Cabinet's endorsement of changes to the Maritime Authority of NSW's Commercial Lease Policy by effectively eliminating any material prospect of a public tender process for those leases and instead permitting direct negotiations for their Circular Quay tenancies.

The Commission found that Mr Dunn engaged in corrupt conduct in 2007 by using his public official position to benefit Mr Obeid and the Obeid family by effectively bringing about a change to the Commercial Lease Policy to allow for direct negotiations with existing Circular Quay leaseholders, knowing that the Obeid family's financial interests would benefit from the change in policy.

The Grabbitt Family freebie list grows

'Sleek, modern, fresh' in Aussie designer Toni Maticevski: 

Bridget, Louise and Francis Abbott on election night

The Abbott family on 7 September 2013

Photograph from The Daily Mail U.K.

It has long been known that Tony Abbott has a penchant for excepting gifts of tailored suits, shirts, ties and sports gear from donors and ‘sponsors’.

Now The Sydney Morning Herald reveals that the women in his family may have their hands out as well……

29 August 2013:

There are plenty of parallels between the Abbott and Obama roadshows. Strong, likeable wife. Tick. Two inspiring daughters. Tick. Skinny suits, white shirts and 365 blue ties. Tick, tick, tick. At the pointy end of his re-election, the President was rarely seen without a jacket and tie. When was the last time you saw Tony in a golf shirt? Or Speedos? Team Abbott should be given gold stars for slickness. With under two weeks to go they're stage-managing the finale with the precision (and wardrobe) of a Kardashian Christmas card.

Like many young Australian women, Bridget and Frances Abbott enjoy getting dressed up, telling Harper's Bazaar magazine that they act as each other's stylists when preparing for their father's events. "We still live at home and it's pretty much an all-girl household most of the time – dad's never there – so we bounce ideas off each other and mum. Sometimes we'll come out in a dress we think is really nice and she'll be like, 'No you wore that out on Saturday night - and you can't wear that to an event!' We do have to be careful of the type of clothes we wear."

Margie Abbott knows how to dress for the klieg light too. At the launch she wore red. Michelle Obama, inauguration ball red. Red that said I stand beside not behind my husband. When Bridget stood on the podium, resplendent in white and said, "I've seen my dad with people from all walks of life – young, old, rich, poor, gay, straight, the frail, the fit, indigenous and migrant – and he treats every single one of them with equal respect" – I believed her. I believed her white blazer.

Fashion can be a potent Kool-Aid and I'm certain that last Sunday night, I'm not the only Australian who took a big sip.

24 May 2014:

Athletic and fresh-faced, sunny and always keen to gossip, at lunch Frances spoke about the fashion designers clamouring to dress her and her sisters.

She said a lot of clothes swapping and borrowing went on among her sisters and that hopeful designers sent items to them via the Prime Minister's Office. ''We don't see [the clothes] because they send them to my dad's office. But [staff] said they've been inundated,'' she said.

She has a good relationship with young designer By Johnny, who sends her and her sisters ''five things a time'', which they send back after wearing, and being photographed in.

The Australian 26 May 2014:

Mr Abbott updated his pecuniary interest register by adding three pages of entries, 23 of which relate to his wife and daughters.

They included tickets to fashion shows and the gift of a dress from designer Johnny Schembri to daughter Bridget, which she kept and paid $20 to the Collector of Public Monies.

The Daily Telegraph 15 October 2013:

Since their father Tony Abbott's appointment as PM, Bridget, 20 Frances, 22 and Louise, 24 Abbott have being thrust into the spotlight and have fast become regulars on the social scene.

When Confidential asked the photogenic twenty-somethings whether they had been inundated with requests from designers to wear their clothes, Bridget said, "a little bit and it is kind of hard to keep up with."

"When people say, "oh we would love you to wear something of ours," if we don't have an opportunity to wear it you feel bad.

"You don't want to be ungrateful and unappreciative but it is so hard to keep on top of it."
Since their dad gained the top job, the girls have aligned themselves with top Australian designers including Toni Matacevski, Nicola Finetti, Willow and Manning and Cartel.

However it is up and coming designer Johnny Schembri, who owns the label by johnny, who has received the tick of approval from the Abbott girls.

UPDATE

Herald Sun 15 June 2014:

A single mum has lost a legal stoush with the Prime Minister’s daughter after Frances Abbott broke the lease at her Melbourne rental property….

The first VCAT member to hear the case, Michael ­Sweeney, was forced to declare he had “dealings with the Prime Minister” and Ms Credlin and excused himself from the hearing.

The matter was eventually heard by Ms Kylea ­Campana.

Ms Abbott told the hearing she did not feel like the property was “safe and secure” as it was advertised.

“I also had my dad and the police check the apartment with me … my dad’s the prime minister,” Ms Abbott told VCAT.

Kevin Hogan, where are you?

Letter to the Editor in The Daily Examiner, 31 May2014:

Country let down

"TRUST me, fisherman," the crocodile said. The fisherman did. The fisherman died.

"Trust us, Australia," Tony Abbott, Joe Hockey and their rich pals said. Australia did.

And Australia got a budget of shameful unfairness causing distress and suffering to the unemployed, the elderly, the sick, the students, families, the environment and scientific research.

This electorate is strongly affected.

Kevin Hogan, where are you?

Barbara Fahey

Grafton

Anthony Albanese: "Abuse of power continued over and over again" in the Australian Parliament since Abbott Government sworn in

The fight continues across the Dispatch Box over the contention that the present Speaker in the Australian House of Representatives, Liberal MP Bronwyn Bishop, is biased and abuses privilege.

Australian House of Representatives Hansard 27 May 2014:

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (15:11): Madam Speaker, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House from moving forthwith:

That the Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Watson, be required by this House to immediately apologise to the Speaker for grievously reflecting on her in this place, most particularly yesterday in a motion of referral of the Speaker to the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests…..

Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask for a ruling as to whether this motion moved by the Leader of the House is in order and whether, in fact, a motion before a motion before the House attempting to demand certain action of a member for referring a matter to the Privileges Committee, or seeking to refer a matter to the Privileges Committee, is, in itself, a breach of privilege and an attack on the right of the member for Watson to raise issues in an appropriate way.

The SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Mr Albanese: Have you seen the motion, Madam Speaker?

The SPEAKER: Yes, I have.

Mr PYNE: Madam Speaker, I read the motion very clearly to the House.

The SPEAKER: And I have a copy of it.

Mr PYNE: The motion did not reflect on the member for Watson attempting to ask the Privileges Committee

to investigate the Speaker. It was a motion to ask him to apologise to you for reflecting on you as Speaker—

The SPEAKER: Correct…..

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (16:01): Thank you. The substantial issue is that of the Speakership and whether it should be used. The House of Representatives Practice makes it very clear—impartiality of the chair. That is what it is all about.

They raise an issue of whether the member for Watson said, incorrectly apparently, that the office had never been used—and he has apologised for that. He apologised for that at once and he also said sorry twice that that was incorrect. But let us be very clear about where that article comes from. It comes from a response about the abuse of the Lodge and Kirribilli House to raise money for the Liberal Party. That is where it comes from; that is the context of that article.

Should any Speaker, be they McLeay or Bishop or any of them, use the Speaker's office? No, they should not!

That is an appropriate debate for us to have. They then say, 'Well, if you got some of the detail wrong then therefore there should be an apology for that.' But there was false information, with respect, Madam Speaker, given from the chair. You said from the chair during this debate that the independent Speaker was an agreement between Labor and the Greens. It was not—it was not!

Tony Abbott:

… I've always supported an independent speakership …

Press comments from him:

I also want to make it very clear that we discussed the issue of a Westminster style speakership …

Over and over again, those opposite—and the Leader of the House signed, in writing, a document.

This is the day after Sorry Day. The irony of those opposite, who for 10 years could not say sorry to the first Australians, coming in here seeking to move by resolution that the Manager of Opposition Business take certain action.

Have a look at all the quotes they have said. The Leader of the House himself:

… the Leader of the Opposition—

Tony Abbott—

… proposed a Westminster style independent Speaker as early as the early part of this decade, in early 2001.

They were all up for it, allegedly, during that period. They signed an agreement but they walked away from it, of course.

But also, what are they asking for here? The same person, Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister who said:

We have never been involved in the business of suppressing free speech …

This attack on my colleague, the member for Watson, is all about, 'How dare he come in here and ask questions on behalf of Australian taxpayers about how much money was raised in the Speaker's office?' the one area of this parliament that should be free from party politics—that should be used in the national interest, that should be used for functions involving foreign guests and that should be used in a bipartisan way in this place.

What you seek to do in doing this is to shut down free speech and debate in this parliament. The fact is that during this very debate, Madam Speaker, the problem is not the member for Watson. The problem is a Speaker who interjects from the chair. The problem is a Speaker who makes partisan decisions. I stand by, and we stand by, all of the comments—with the exception of that factual error that he made—of the member for Watson about the conduct of this parliament because, at the end of the day, it is not about you, Madam Speaker, it is not about the member for Watson, or me or the Leader of the House. It is about how this parliament functions.

The fact is, if you think this parliament has been functioning well since last September then I think you are completely out of touch with what the majority of Australians who watch this parliament see each and every day with this abuse of power continued over and over again by the Leader of the House, who is too immature to hold

that job!

The exchanges recorded in Hansard a day earlier which lead to Anthony Albanese speaking against Leader of the House Christopher Pyne’s motion …….

Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:14): Madam Speaker, under standing order 103 I have a question for you in your role as the administrator of parliament. How many Liberal Party fundraisers has the Speaker held in the Speaker's dining room and on what dates did these fundraisers occur?

The SPEAKER : I know the member for Watson was late into the parliament at nine o'clock this morning so he probably did not hear the statement I read on that occasion, so I will read it again.

On 15 May 2014, the member for Moreton asked me a question about the display of posters in corridors. Posters had appeared on the outside of doors to several members' suites, and the member had asked that they be taken down. Consistent with the longstanding practice, upheld by successive Speakers, that signs and posters not be permitted in the corridors or on the doors leading off the corridors, the members concerned were asked to take the posters down at my request and they have since been removed. It remains the prerogative of members to place material inside the internal corridor windows of their suites. Also, all members are entitled to use their suites for their own purposes, but of course not for illegal purposes. That is the answer to your question.

Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business): Madam Speaker, I refer you to page 179 of House of Representatives Practice, where it states:

For many purposes the Speaker is in effect 'Minister' for the Department of the House of Representatives and jointly with the President of the Senate is 'Minister' for the Department of Parliamentary Services.

As you would appreciate, ministers are not able to hold political functions in departmental resources. I ask again: how many Liberal Party fundraisers has the Speaker held in the Speaker's dining room and on what dates did these fundraisers occur?

The SPEAKER:  I refer the member also to the Practice, which refers quite clearly that the Speaker is in charge of the domain of Parliament House, which was made quite clear from the original time of the Speaker holder back in 1901. I have said that members may use their suites for whatever purposes they see fit, and that includes you, but they may not use them for an illegal purpose. Therefore, it is not the business of either executive government or others to ask members the purposes for which they use their offices. That is the rule.

Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business): Madam Speaker, in your role as administrator of that department, which then goes to the finances of that department, I ask: how much has the Liberal Party paid on each occasion for the use of the Speaker's dining room for fundraisers and has the ordinary $600 venue hire fee, which applies to all private dining rooms, been among the payments made?

The SPEAKER : I will not engage in debate on the question. I have made the ruling. I have said that members may use their offices for their own purposes.

Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business): Madam Speaker, I wish to raise a matter of privilege. In recent days there have been reports that the Speaker has used her Parliament House dining room to hold Liberal Party fundraisers. There is a question as to whether the Speaker or the Liberal Party paid for the use of the Speaker's dining room for these party political functions. I have available for tabling, if it would assist, articles from The Sunday Telegraph, The Sun-Herald, The Sunday Times, the Sunday Canberra Times, The Age and The Australian. I ask the Speaker to investigate whether this constitutes an improper interference with the operations of the House of Representatives such as to require that the matter be referred to the Privileges Committee for investigation and report.

The SPEAKER: I simply say that the member for Watson is perfectly at liberty under standing order 216 to write to the committee himself, and I recommend that he do so.

Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, House of Representatives Practice indicates that I should first raise the issue with you in the House, which I have now done, and then there is an option for an individual to have ready a motion to move immediately, which under Practice does not require a seconder. Is that the path you wish me to choose?

The SPEAKER: I have said that under standing order 216 you are perfectly entitled—and I am following a ruling made by my predecessor, the member for Chisholm. That is the ruling, so you no longer have the call.

Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I seek the call.

The SPEAKER: You can seek the call, but I recommend you do precisely as I said.

Mr Burke: I seek the call.

The SPEAKER: You have the call.

Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business): I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests:

Whether the Speaker's use of her Parliament House dining room for Liberal Party fundraisers constitutes an improper interference with the operation of the House of Representatives.

It has been the case throughout this parliament and previous parliaments that there are venues for hire all around the building. The Speaker's office is not one of them. I do not intend to completely derail the day and derail the parliamentary business of the day. I had hoped, Madam Speaker, that you would take the questions in good faith. There was no argument in the questions that I raised. The questions I raised simply sought the same sort of information that the people of Australia are entitled to find out about. When I first heard these allegations, I made the response that I believed that your position would be untenable if it were true because I could not believe, for all the arguments that I have had with the chair, that your office would become outsourced to the Liberal Party as a fundraising venue. For all the arguments we have had, it never occurred to me that partisanship would go to effectively donating a venue to the Liberal Party…..

The SPEAKER interjecting—…..

The SPEAKER (15.35): Before I call the Leader of the House I will say this: the reason I did not say I will take it and reflect upon it is because it does reflect on me. It is far better that you were able to move your motion and deal with it within the parliament in an open way and you have your say—although I find it a bit rough to be lectured on morality from you, Member for Watson. I call the honourable the Leader of the House….

The SPEAKER (15:36): What is the point of order?

Ms Plibersek: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask you to reconsider the statement that you made about—

The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. I have sat here and accepted the words that were said about me. The Leader of the House has the call.

Ms Plibersek: You have questioned his morality and you have engaged in debate when you should not.

The SPEAKER: The deputy leader will resume her seat. The Leader of the House has the call.

Mr PYNE: You just do not know how to behave, do you member for Rankin, member for Lingiari, Deputy Leader of the Opposition? It is just extraordinary. You have no manners at all.

Opposition members interjecting—

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House has the call.

Mr Bowen: Madam speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The SPEAKER: If this is meant to disrupt debate—

Mr Bowen: No it is not.

The SPEAKER: Then I will accept the point of order.

Mr Bowen: I have a point of order on two grounds: firstly, you clearly intervened and participated in the debate; secondly, you clearly reflected on a member of this House. Any one of us would have been asked to withdraw and would have. You should comply, with respect, by the same rules that apply to every other member. Very clearly, you should withdraw that comment.

The SPEAKER: Except me, apparently. The Leader of the House has the call…..