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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1844 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Assembly had to deal with the matter. Exactly the same situation, Mr Speaker. Absolutely no difference.

Really, the argument put forward by Mr Moore and others today from the government has been a furphy when it comes to what happens if witnesses do not attend. Mr Speaker, I would hope that regardless of the forum witnesses would attend. Assembly committees to date in the history of self-government have never had to summon witnesses. If Mr Gower honestly feels that he has been misquoted as he outlined in his media statement, I would imagine he would take the opportunity to correct his statements on the record, in the Hansard.

The argument put forward by the government, that if we have a select committee of privileges the witnesses might not attend and then we have to get harsh with them, applies in exactly the same way to the Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services. In both instances it is about committees calling people to attend before them to give evidence. Absolutely no difference.

The important point to remember here is that it is only a select committee of privileges which can properly examine an alleged breach of privilege, not the Planning and Urban Services Committee of the Assembly. You only have to look at the terms of reference of the Planning and Urban Services Committee of the Assembly to see that it has no responsibility for determining issues of possible breaches of privilege. That is why I would urge members to not support the government's amendment. It is based on a straw man. The argument that witnesses will not attend applies equally to whatever committee considers it. The difference is that only a select committee of privileges can consider a possible breach of privilege. The Planning and Urban Services Committee has nothing in its terms of reference to do so, nor does it necessarily have the members with the appropriate level of knowledge of parliamentary procedure and background to consider it, without reflecting on any of my colleagues on the Planning and Urban Services Committee.

The other issue I want to raise is this: Mr Smyth said in his rebuttal to my presentation this morning that I had alleged certain things about what he had said to the Gungahlin Community Council. His words were that I, Mr Corbell, had alleged it. Mr Speaker, let me make it very clear. I have alleged nothing. The person who has done the alleging is Mr David Gower, and the proof of that is in the Hansard. Let me again read for members some relevant parts of Mr Gower's comments. I quote:

Not "may not get a road", or "possibly will not get a road". He said, "We would not get a road."

Mr Speaker, this raises the issue that Mr Humphries put to the Assembly. Mr Humphries said that there is no evidence that demonstrated that Mr Smyth was attempting to

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