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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1788 ..

MR MOORE: And he now says what Mr Gower has alleged. Mr Speaker, it is important for us to understand what happens under these circumstances. If that was the case it would not be accompanied by a huge amount of publicity. We know that the trial of Assembly members does not happen there. The impact is not what happens in the privileges committee. It is the public perception of what happens. It is a public perception that Mr Corbell has already been running particularly strongly from day one when this occurred and he began his questions in question time, which he is entitled to do, and his press releases on the matter. The trial has begun and Mr Corbell is out there in the public, accusing and running the evidence.

Unfortunately, Mr Speaker, this is what we are seeing from Labor since Jon Stanhope has become the leader of Labor in this area. It is not a surprise. It is a Keatingesque approach, and we know where he had his training. The surprise is that it is Mr Corbell who is actually running it.

Now, put that in the context of what Ms Tucker raised about social capital. Social capital is about building trust and trust in the systems. If you really were looking to develop social capital and trust in the systems, this matter of privilege would have been brought to the Assembly and dealt with in the Assembly, which is a public forum. Granted, that may well have been reported as a matter that was being considered. But no, it is not done in that way. Accusations are being made very publicly in a series of ways in order to ensure that there is some mud sticking on Mr Smyth before we know whether or not he is guilty or innocent. So it is an important part of the process and each and every one of us who is involved in politics understands that process. We understand the impact of mud. We understand how we stand. What have you got in terms of your approach in public? You have yourself, you have your sense of yourself, and that is what is being attacked. This is a reiteration of an approach that we have seen.

Let us just look at the process. It is not a process that you can do lightly. It is a very important process. It seems to me that we should go back to the proper process and let the planning committee bring Mr Gower in, probably, if Mr Gower wishes, in a confidential way so that he is not under the extra pressure, because now that this process is so public it is likely to have a great deal of public interest. If you are really interested in finding out what the truth is and what has happened, that ought to be the first step.

If it is not going to be the first step, what should a privileges committee like this do? How should it operate? We don't know in this Assembly because we have never had one. What we have to do, therefore, is look at House of Representatives Practice. It is interesting to read what House of Representatives Practice says about how a committee of privileges should operate.

First of all, the chair of the committee is normally a backbench member of considerable parliamentary experience and sometimes a minister. Mr Kep Enderby, when he was minister-he was one of the local ACT members-was chair of such a committee. There would normally be lawyers on the committee. House of Representatives Practice gives a series of descriptions of how serious the matter is and then it talks about the committee's authority and jurisdiction. It looks at its authority and its jurisdiction and how it operates. There is a series of pages about the procedures of this sort of committee which demonstrate just how seriously they are taken.

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