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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1840 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

they are not a contempt of parliament. Would they become a contempt of parliament if the officer from the AIDS Action Council appeared before an Assembly committee and said, "This was said to me by this minister's minder"? Would that appearance before the committee transform it into-

Mr Wood: In any event, that is not relevant to this issue.

MR HUMPHRIES: It is relevant to this issue. It is to the core of this issue. It is exactly the same as this issue.

Mr Wood: Did that happen in a committee?

MR HUMPHRIES: No. But I am saying-

Mr Wood: Not conceding anything, but would it happen in a committee?

MR HUMPHRIES: You don't understand, Mr Wood. I will explain simply. What I am saying is that the action I have described, of itself, would not be a contempt of parliament. Nor would it become a contempt of parliament if the person who had been threatened trotted up to an Assembly committee and reported that fact to an Assembly committee, because the threat that was made to that person and that person's organisation-

Mr Wood: Alleged.

MR HUMPHRIES: Well, I believe it happened, but, all right, alleged. The alleged threat that was made to that person's organisation was not made for the purpose of changing evidence before a parliamentary committee; it was made for the purpose of changing the view of that organisation. That person did not end up confronting an Assembly committee, as it happens, so the issue did not arise. But even if we assume that these words were said, and I adamantly deny that that is the case-they were not, Mr Speaker-they cannot be said to constitute a contempt of parliament because there is not one bit of evidence that they were said in order to influence a committee hearing that was happening three weeks later. There is not one shred of evidence. It is not in the transcripts. It is not in anything that has been said by either of the parties. It has not even been said, so far as I am aware, by Mr Corbell or Ms Tucker, who are the chief prosecutors of Mr Smyth. It has not been said anywhere.

On that basis, creation of a select committee on privileges is not justified, but we have said that we believe Mr Smyth's name needs to be cleared, and it should be cleared in the same way in which it was originally sullied, and that is before the Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services.

Mr Moore: Of which Mr Corbell is even a member.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Corbell is a member of that committee so he has the chance to do it there, Mr Speaker. This is a matter which puts great pressure on any minister concerned. Each minister in this government at various stages has had that kind of pressure placed on them by people making accusations which, on my observation, have been rarely backed up by any hard evidence. (Further extension of time granted.)

We had the accusation last year that, because somebody from the staff of a minister had gone to someone's home to comfort them after the hospital implosion I, the minister concerned, had tried to influence this person about the employment of their particular solicitor.

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