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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1845 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

influence Mr Gower's evidence. Everyone knows, first, that the Gungahlin Drive issue is a very important issue and a very contentious issue; secondly, that the Assembly had decided that the issue warranted an inquiry to determine, amongst other issues, the best possible route for the road; thirdly, that the urban services committee had published in advance its schedule of witnesses and when they would appear before the committee; fourthly, that government officials from Mr Smyth's department were well aware of the schedule of witnesses and who would be appearing when. (Extension of time granted.) I thank members. Fifthly, that the Gungahlin Community Council's evidence to the Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services would be central evidence which would be given great attention and credibility simply because they are the only community organisation that represents the interests of one of the communities most directly affected by the road, the community of Gungahlin

Mr Smyth did not need necessarily to say, "I want you to change your evidence, otherwise I will not build the road." He did not need to say that because he knew-indeed we all know in this place-how important the views of the Gungahlin Community Council are when it comes to this road, because they represent the community of Gungahlin. Any attempt to suggest to the Gungahlin Community Council that they should be supporting the government's option otherwise the road would not be built was obviously going to have an impact on what information and evidence they presented to the Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services. Any attempt to do that was going to have that influence. That is what we need to investigate. That is what we need to determine.

Mr Moore raised the issue about McCarthyist tactics, a star chamber and the tactics of Ken Starr. Let me make it very clear: a possible breach of privilege is not an issue which is pursued in a political way. Mr Speaker, I wrote to you close to a fortnight ago now asking you to consider whether or not the matter should be given precedence. I did so because I saw in the standing orders that that was the appropriate course of action. I did not, in the whole period of time since I wrote to you and was awaiting a response from you, raise the issue in a public forum. I did not mention it once. Why, Mr Speaker? Because I thought it was appropriate that you have the opportunity to consider the matter free of any public debate, and that is what I did.

If I had been political about it, if I had wanted simply to make political capital out of it, I would have told the world the moment I put the letter into the hands of staff of the secretariat, but I did no such thing. What I have done is raise the fact that the matter is to be considered in the Assembly today. I have done so because it is a valid matter of public interest. It has already been raised in a public forum, a public hearing of this Assembly, and people in the community deserve to know that the Assembly is considering it further. That is what I have done.

At the end of the day what I am asking is this: not that we determine today whether something went wrong, not that we determine today whether or not Mr Smyth acted in a way which was improper, not that we determine today whether what Mr Gower said was right or wrong, but that we determine to have the matter investigated in a way which is separate from the hot-house atmosphere which is the Planning and Urban Services Committee's inquiry into this matter.

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