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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1913 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Mr Moore himself, in the debate earlier today, said that a select committee on privileges is composed of members with parliamentary experience, with knowledge of the standing orders and with considerable background on the issue raised. He himself said that that was how an issue of a breach of privilege should be handled. If that is the government's view, as put forward by Mr Moore, then why are they opposed to referring it to a select committee on privileges? Surely it is the only place the matter can go.

The standing committee on urban services is not the appropriate forum. It does not have it in its terms of reference. What will the standing committee on urban services do? It will not have the level of advice that a select committee on privileges would have. It would not be able to focus solely on the matter.

Mr Speaker, it is appropriate that a select committee on privileges examine it. It is that simple. It is unfortunate that it appears the majority of members are now no longer prepared to accept that that should be the case.

MR OSBORNE: Mr Speaker, I seek leave to speak again.

Leave granted.

MR OSBORNE: I would have thought that this whole issue has been about evidence given before the urban services committee and I would have thought the most sensible place for the questions to be asked of Mr Gower again would be that same committee. I heard nothing from Mr Corbell that swayed me to support a select committee. I will be supporting it going to the urban services committee.

Mr Rugendyke has indicated that he feels there are some questions that should be asked of Mr Gower. I accept that and there will be an inquiry. It seems there is some dissent over where the inquiry is going to be undertaken, but, as I said, I heard nothing from Mr Corbell that warranted my supporting a select committee.

MR KAINE (11.33): Given that Mr Osborne was absent during much of the debate on this issue today and he says that he was persuaded by Mr Rugendyke to take the position that he is now adopting, I would like Mr Rugendyke to explain to us the compelling arguments that he used to persuade Mr Osborne to this viewpoint because he may persuade me. I would give leave for Mr Rugendyke to give me the same persuasive arguments that he used on Mr Osborne to see if I can be persuaded to his viewpoint also. My guess is that Mr Rugendyke will decline the offer. I would be interested to know what compelling arguments he used and I would like to hear them.

While I am on my feet, Mr Speaker, I foreshadow that I will be moving an amendment to Mr Humphries' motion in order to refer this matter to the justice committee because it is justice we are trying to talk about here, presumably. That is what they are concerned about over there-that their minister be given due justice. Mr Osborne referred to the fact that he already has my Commission for Integrity in Government Bill before his committee, and I suggest that that is the right committee to refer this matter to also. I would like to hear from Mr Rugendyke, particularly since he voted for the select committee.

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