Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1920 ..
MR BERRY (continuing):
I do not want to go to the issue at large other than to say that if, as is suggested, it is a matter of tampering with witnesses, that is a serious matter. It is a matter which ought to be seen in the community as a matter we take seriously. If we do take it seriously, then an appropriate committee is a committee properly established for the specific purpose. If not, I think we treat the matter lightly.
The government thinks it is less significant and a winding back of the seriousness of the issue if it sends it off to the urban services committee. In the formal sense it is hard to make out a case for that, but at least, in presentational terms, it looks as though we are treating it seriously if we construct a committee especially to deal with the matter. The community has to have confidence that when the committees of this place are dealing with them as witnesses, or dealing with other people as witnesses, or members of this place as people who are giving evidence, they take their job seriously and that formal and proper means of dealing with witnesses will prevail.
There is, at this point, no more than a charge on foot, if I can describe it in that way, which should cause a great many of those people in the community who are concerned about proper conduct of this Assembly. It should convince them, and I would convince them, that there is a need to take the matter seriously. I think we undermine our own standing if we do not give this matter the prominence that it deserves.
I declare my interest in this because I would be the Labor Party's nominee and I am very careful about what I say in relation to the matter. I do not mind declaring my interest. That is not something that I am concerned about. It is a matter that I take very seriously. The Labor Party has entrusted me to take on this job. It would be a job I would treat very seriously and it would be treated in a way which I hope will bring credit to the Assembly rather than discredit.
There is nothing particular in this for me except a lot of hard work, I can tell you. It is not something that I would particularly enjoy, given that we are now going into the budget process, but, for my part, if this matter is going to be dealt with it ought to be dealt with in a manner which shows that this Assembly treats privilege seriously and treats seriously allegations about certain members or ministers handling of witnesses. (Extension of time granted.) Witness tampering is regarded generally as an appalling charge to make against anybody. It is not fair for this not to be treated in a proper way. If we shrink back from the opportunity to establish the committee, which we have already established in effect, then I think we do ourselves a disservice.
MR CORBELL (12.04 am): The proposal put by Mr Humphries is completely inappropriate. It is inappropriate because, first of all, his amendment removes the words in my original motion which require that the matter be examined as a matter of privilege. The government is not prepared to accept that it is a matter of privilege. The government has not been able to substantiate, in any way, its claim that this is the case.
House of Representatives Practice
clearly states that any attempt to improperly influence a witness who is to give evidence or has given evidence before a committee or the house itself, so that obviously includes committees in this Assembly, is considered to be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .