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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1789 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

It is also important to note that in House of Representatives Practice there are some penalties that apply when people do not cooperate when they are working with committees. In fact, committees of the House of Representatives and other parliaments in Australia can actually use imprisonment. There is a parliamentary process for imprisonment.

Mr Stanhope: We cannot.

MR MOORE: We cannot. Do not interject. This is a serious matter. Can I finish? Mr Speaker, not only is there a process of imprisonment. There is also a process of fining up to $5,000. We do not have that process. So what happens if the committee decides to call on Mr Gower and Mr Gower decides to do one of two things? He could sit there and just repeat what he has to say, which would be a normal process for somebody who has a written statement, or, as is shown in House of Representatives Practice for such a committee, he could have a lawyer with him, which he is entitled to do. That is another possibility, and look at the expense associated there. Also, he could decide not to come. If he decides not to come, sorry, guys, that is the end of it, and the Assembly looks silly again. In House of Representatives Practice there is power to bring people in. This Assembly does not have that power. He could simply refuse to appear, and then how do you draw your conclusions?

Mr Kaine: You can summon him to the bar.

MR MOORE: We can summon him to the bar. Mr Kaine is correct. We can summon him to the bar and if he refuses to come what do we do? You ought to think about that because what happens if he refuses to come is not at all clear. In my opinion, having read through House of Representatives Practice and where we are, I doubt that we have the power to bring somebody to the bar. We certainly have the power to invite somebody, but there are issues there in terms of what this committee is and what it does.

It is appropriate for us to look back. Because we have already begun a process of publicly talking about what Mr Smyth has done wrong, there is a sense of the Star Chamber about this. I raise the Star Chamber quite deliberately. You may remember the court of the Tudors, the Star Chamber, which was in place for quite some years. Basically it became representative of what was unjust and inappropriate because it had no jury. Depositions were taken from witnesses and the proceedings were very limited. (Extension of time granted.) As the Columbia Encyclopaedia says, in its later period the court was so reviled that the Star Chamber became a byword for unfair judicial proceedings.

Of course, we know about another star, and this is what I am leading to. I am not particularly worried about that one. I am leading to Ken Starr and his investigation into Clinton and that situation. Why draw that to attention? There, it was not the proceedings-

Mr Corbell: You are getting desperate. Get back to the issue.

MR MOORE: This is the very nub of the issue and if you listen you will understand why, Mr Corbell.

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