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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2638 ..

MR WOOD

ill-informed and hurried process would produce a result that would ultimately be detrimental to the ACT, to the Assembly, to the committee and to certain individuals.

I would have expected that Mr Smyth, in preparing his committee's report, would have given some good background for why the Assembly should take up this outrageous measure, but did he do so? Did he quote standing orders? He or his colleagues quoted them a number of times in the last debate. Did you quote standing orders to say where I had transgressed? No, of course you did not, because there was no transgression. The first thing you should have done would have been to quote back to me the standing orders. Your failure to do so-obviously you could not-is a clear indication that there was no problem.

Secondly, if the standing orders do not cover something, you go to parliamentary practice. In fact, you did go to parliamentary practice with a totally spurious quote talking about sub judice. I never mentioned sub judice. It was not part of my argument. I did not include it in the preamble I gave and just read. I never mentioned it. Sub judice has nothing to do with it. The fact that that is the best thing that you can find in evidence tells me that you have no case and it tells everybody else that you have no case.

I repeat the two points that you should have been making. Were standing orders transgressed? No, certainly not, there was no mention of that. Was parliamentary practice transgressed? Certainly not. (Extension of time granted.) So there we are. There is simply no basis, no evidence, to support this claim, other than Mr Smyth's hyperbole. The only thing that it has got going for it is the nonsense that he spelt out. The claim is pathetic, pathetically weak.

But let me go on further. The committee report itself that Mr Smyth prepared congratulates one of my departments, Urban Services, on its excellent response to the considerable burden of questions. The other departments, Police and Emergency Services and Disability, Housing and Community Services, were just as good. All of my departments responded properly to the vast load of questions. We were only too happy to cooperate; so you can see the real nonsense.

I do not do things lightly, so pay attention, and I do not normally use the names of officers in this place, but when I was considering this issue I went to the then clerk, Mr McRae, and said, "We have concerns. What would you advise?"That was the outcome. I prefer not to have to use officers' names, but that was the case. I sought the best advice available and took it. It was a darn sight better than yours and the nonsense that you were going on with. For heaven's sake, you stand up and rabbit on at great length, with all the exaggerated statements in the world, and think that you ought to put up a proposal. I think that your action was just disgraceful.

As you can see, I am rather annoyed, because I have been a member for a long time and I think that I have been very conscientious. I have worked on committees and I believe that on every occasion I have responded absolutely to the requirements of the house and the committees. I have done it again on this occasion, but for some political advantage, for some mean political advantage, you want to send me off to a privileges committee. I think that that is disgraceful.

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