Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 81 ..

Mr Berry: You are on it, are you not?

MR KAINE: There are two. The two members could, under the standing orders, proceed to take evidence on the matter, but could not conduct a deliberative session on it. There needs to be a third member appointed by the Assembly, and then there needs to be a determination about whether that person is to become the chair. So there are a number of matters that are open, at the moment, about the committee itself, let alone what the committee might consider when it takes this reference on board. I do not know that we need necessarily look too far into the future at this juncture.

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister) (5.05): Mr Speaker, I have made very clear my opinion on this matter. Various members of the Assembly have expressed different opinions - - -

Ms Follett: I am with you, Kate.

MRS CARNELL: That is good. Various members have expressed differences of opinion. As this issue affects each individual MLA quite personally, or could potentially, I believe strongly that the Assembly should look at it. I certainly do not resile from my position on this.

MR BERRY (5.06): I heard what Mr Kaine said in relation to this matter and he is right in saying that there are rare occasions when matters are dealt with retrospectively. I think it is time to make a decision in relation to this one right now. Two people were involved in the proceedings which we are discussing. I think it would be quite unfair to the complainant if this matter were opened up by a committee of this house. The complainant in this issue would, I expect, be extremely stressed by the reopening of this issue. I will come back to that once the discussion over there has been completed, Mr Speaker, so they can hear what I am saying. I think it is probably the best course, rather than ask you to interject.

There are other issues at large as well. My understanding is that this matter has gone on appeal. You have to consider whether or not it would be correct for a committee to be raking over the coals, so to speak, in relation to a matter which was the subject of appeal. I think it would be quite unfair of this Assembly to take the position of looking at whether or not legal assistance would be provided by the Government when this process is in place. I think it would be quite wrong.

I go back to a point I was raising earlier, when you were involved in other discussion. You have to think about the complainant here. How do you think the complainant in this matter is going to feel about having this matter raised again in the context of the provision of assistance for legal proceedings for a person, irrespective of what the outcome of the inquiry might be? The fact is that there is going to be an inquiry into it. I think she would be entitled to feel aggrieved that the matter was even being inquired into. That would be my view of the matter anyway. I think it is unfair of us even to enter into a debate.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .