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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1790 ..

Mr Corbell: I have been listening and it is a load of nonsense.

MR MOORE: The reason is this: that process was not about what happened in the judicial proceedings. It was about what happened publicly. That is what we are dealing with here, what happened publicly. It is exactly the same situation as when Joe McCarthy was doing his witch-hunts in a committee. It was not to do with what was happening so much in the process; it was to do with what was happening publicly.

Mr Speaker, it seems to me there is something that is much more important than those things. A particular person who is a volunteer and a community member has been put under this pressure when all that had to happen when he wrote the letter was for the planning committee or Mr Corbell to invite him back to the committee to try to sort this out. That was the proper process, and that is the process we should have gone back to.

Mr Corbell: That is an admission that something is funny here.

Mr Quinlan: The pressure might be working.

MR MOORE: It is not an admission that there is something wrong at all. It is a way of finding out why he had done that or what he was doing, and why he had changed his mind in terms of the planning committee. That is what you should have done. From there it might be appropriate for the committee or for a member to bring up this matter of privilege in this way.

Mr Corbell correctly raised the matter of privilege as he understood it to the Speaker, and I do not have any problem with it being raised. The Speaker determined that the matter did not have precedence. That is understandable. Before that, it seems to me that it was logical simply to let the planning committee take it up, but there was political mileage from doing something else, and that is actually what this is about.

Mr Speaker, I would like to conclude by adding a personal element on this. At the last election when Mr Corbell packed up his office I said to him I was extraordinarily disappointed that he had not been elected, and I meant that. When we realised he had been elected I went to him and I said I was delighted that he was back, and I meant that too. I have on many occasions, publicly and privately, expressed my opinion that Mr Corbell is one of the best Labor members in this chamber, and one of the best members of the chamber. I have often said that, and I believe it. But I have to say I feel extraordinarily sad at this approach on this occasion. I always like process to be followed. This time, Simon, you have got the process wrong.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (12.16): The issue really is very simple. It is being complicated by those on the other side wishing to build a defence at this stage by suggesting that there is simply nothing to inquire into or investigate. The simple facts of the matter are so plain and so obvious. The simple facts of the matter are as set out in the Hansard. The simple fact of the matter is that Mr Gower, the President of the Gungahlin Community Council, has made certain statements to a committee of this place.

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