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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1842 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):

witnesses are to be brought before a committee of any sort. In the event of an embarrassed witness who may not wish to appear, we rely on standing order 255, and he would need to be summonsed before the committee. Then, when we look at standing order 256, the heading is "Recusant witness". I am not quite sure what "recusant" means, but standing order 256 says:

I do not know what that means either. I do not know how the Assembly would deal with the matter if Mr Gower chose not to participate in the privileges committee process. I do not think the standing orders say how a matter such as that would be dealt with, but it appears to me to be a very severe remedy.

So, Mr Speaker, after weighing up all the arguments, it is my view that it is fair and reasonable that the matter be referred back to the Planning and Urban Services Committee, which is an option under your own ruling. I think the Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services is the appropriate forum for Mr Gower and other witnesses to be given the opportunity to have their say on this matter. Mr Speaker, that is my position. I will be supporting the amendment to the motion in order to refer this matter to the Planning and Urban Services Committee, a forum that I believe will be able to get to the bottom of this issue in a more sensible way for Mr Gower, if for nothing else.

MR CORBELL (5.24): Mr Speaker, the issue before us this evening is not about whether Mr Smyth or any of his staff or any officers of his department breached privilege. We are not to decide on that matter. The issue is whether or not a select committee on privileges should be established.

We have just heard Mr Rugendyke indicate that he believes the most appropriate course of action is to refer the matter back to the Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services to examine the allegations of possible improper influence of a witness. I urge Mr Rugendyke and other members who may believe this to be an appropriate course of action to reconsider. Mr Speaker, I hope that Mr Moore will let Mr Rugendyke hear my argument on this matter.

Mr Berry: Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. We are at an important point in this debate and Mr Moore is over there deliberately distracting Mr Rugendyke from the debate which is-

MR SPEAKER: I do not know that that is the case at all.

Mr Humphries: Just as Mr Corbell was when I was speaking, Mr Speaker.

MR CORBELL: Mr Humphries, in case you did not notice, I spoke with Mr Rugendyke for about 10 seconds during the whole of your very lengthy speech. Nevertheless, Mr Speaker, if Mr Moore wants to pursue those tactics, I am quite happy for him to do so.

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