Page 4266 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 20 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Members interjected.
MR JENSEN: I note, Mr Speaker, that there are some derisory comments from across the other side of the chamber; but I would have to refer them to the terms of reference of the committee, which suggest that it was the Assembly, as a whole, that put this reference to the committee. It was not something that the committee did itself; it was referred to it by the Assembly. Therefore, if you want to make any comments in relation to who raised this issue, it is this Assembly that referred it to the committee, not the members of the committee. Let us get that straight from the beginning.
Mr Speaker, before making my comments on this report and the process that we followed, I would like to refer briefly to the additional statements by Mr Berry. I note that they are a straight copy of what he included in the committee,s report on the capital works program, despite the fact that I would have expected Mr Berry to produce further arguments. It seems to me that on issues like front fences for the ACT the ALP should have seen fit to participate fully in this process and to seek a bipartisan view on the issue. I would also suggest that the report provides a balanced view of the issue and makes recommendations which could be seen as being at odds with recommendations made by ACT Government agencies. Such recommendations could be seen as being what the real processes of Assembly committees are all about, namely, looking at the issues, reviewing the evidence and then bringing down recommendations for consideration by the Assembly as a whole and the Government. I might add at this juncture that Mr Berry, in fact, was provided throughout the process with all documents, including drafts of the report.
At this stage, I would like to comment briefly on an unfortunate situation which occurred when a copy of the draft report, which was being considered by all members of the committee and was made available to all members of the committee, was passed to the media. Unfortunately, the media saw fit to see this as some kind of scoop and made a front page story out of the draft. This unfortunately caused some concerns in the community when some aged persons and other businesses were concerned about the possible effects on them and their businesses - concerns which were clearly unfounded. As chairman of the committee I would like to express my regret at what was a clear breach of the standing orders of this Assembly. It could be seen, in fact, as a clear contempt of the proceedings of the Assembly and the committee system.
Mr Speaker, section 13 of the Federal Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 provides for penalties of some $5,000 for an individual and $25,000 for a corporation for the unauthorised disclosure of evidence. Cases of the premature release of private deliberations and draft reports have generally been pursued by the House of Representatives as matters of contempt. Page 713 of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .