Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1843 ..
MR SPEAKER: Mr Berry, I am sorry but I cannot direct members to do anything. If Mr Rugendyke wishes to speak with Mr Moore, that is entirely his affair.
MR CORBELL: Indeed.
Mr Berry: But anybody else has to go outside the chamber.
MR SPEAKER: I cannot do much about that.
MR CORBELL: I ask members to consider this point. Members who are willing to pursue the amendment proposed by the government should particularly listen to this argument, and I would ask them to do so. Mr Speaker, the Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services is not the committee to consider a possible breach of privilege. It is not the place to consider it simply because we have already heard in this place that the forum, the avenue, for examining an alleged breach of privilege is a select committee on privileges. Who made that argument, Mr Speaker? It was Mr Moore.
Mr Moore outlined that a select committee on privileges has members on it who have a good understanding of the standing orders of this place, who have considerable experience, or as much as is possible in this place, in parliamentary practice and procedure, and they are often lawyers. Mr Moore himself indicated that a select committee of privileges is the most appropriate forum to consider any breach of privilege.
Mr Humphries' amendment says that the Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services should "examine the allegations of the possible improper influence of a witness". Possible improper influence of a witness is a possible breach of privilege, Mr Speaker. House of Representatives Practice says that the improper influencing of a witness is a breach of privilege if it is proved. So, Mr Speaker, what Mr Humphries is saying is a possible improper influencing of a witness therefore is a possible breach of privilege. Therefore it should be considered by a select committee of privileges, not the Planning and Urban Services Committee which has no brief to consider issues to do with a possible breach of privilege. It is not the appropriate course of action.
Mr Speaker, further we have heard some other issues raised in this debate today. We have heard the issue raised that a select committee of privileges would be an extreme course of action.
MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Corbell has the floor. If other members wish to talk they might like to go outside and use the lobbies.
MR CORBELL
: Mr Speaker, we have heard that a select committee on privileges is an extreme course of action, and we have heard that witnesses might not show up, and then what would we do. Mr Rugendyke legitimately raised this concern. But, Mr Speaker, the same situation could occur with the Planning and Urban Services Committee. What if this matter was referred back to the Planning and Urban Services Committee and we asked Mr Gower to appear and he refused to do so? We would be back at exactly the same point that Mr Rugendyke raised when he spoke just now. We would be back at the point, under standing order 256, where a witness failed or refused to attend and the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .