Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2652 ..
MRS BURKE
(continuing):Mr Corbell apologised for his actions and I think it takes a big person to do that. What he did was good and commendable and I applaud him for being able to take it on the chin. Although Mr Corbell has apologised, how are we to know that there are not other areas that we should have some concerns about and that need investigating and looking at? The committee process will surely clear up this matter so that there will be no doubt about whether there was a contempt.
Ms Tucker has read out this evening what constitutes contempt and what does not. I think we all need to step back. However, I am concerned that we are not stepping back from the emotion of the matter. As I have said, surely, if enough members have some concerns about due process, we owe it to each other in this place to respect that and ensure that such matters are investigated beyond a shadow of doubt.
MS TUCKER
: Mr Speaker, I seek leave to speak again.Leave granted.
MS TUCKER
: I just want to make a couple more comments. I want to make it clear that I am interested in the question that has been raised, particularly by the opposition, of where it is appropriate for a person to not answer questions asked in a committee hearing. I do not think a privileges committee is the appropriate place to look at that. I am talking in particular about part (a) of Mr Smyth's amendment, which is to do with Mr Wood.Earlier this evening members wanted-I do not know quite what people want now because they seem to be annoyed, but they might still be interested in this-to see referred to a committee the question of whether or not information should be made available to the Assembly. This interesting question is related to the question of when is it appropriate for a person to not answer questions that are put by a committee? Obviously, if you look at the standing orders-I cannot remember which one it is, but it is related to witnesses-there is a capacity for people not to answer questions, but it is not spelt out when.
I think it would be quite interesting to refer this matter to our Administration and Procedure Committee. I am happy to develop a motion addressing questions of legal advice and put it on the notice paper for the next sitting period so that we as an Assembly can get a sense of the parameters that we might be guided by when these questions come up. Similarly, the motion could deal with the question of when is it appropriate for particular questions not to be asked in a committee hearing.
Obviously we in this place have an understanding of sub judice, but it is unclear and that is what this debate is about. You could have a coroner's inquiry, inquiries under the Inquiries Act and other sorts of inquiries, so I think it would be quite useful for the Assembly to take a look at that. I am suggesting that, if there is support from a majority of members and the Administration and Procedure Committee is interested, this would be a way to progress these important questions.
I still, of course, reserve the right to make a decision about whether I think the potential charge of contempt needs to be worked through in a select committee on privileges.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .