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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Tuesday, 10 February 2004) . . Page.. 16 ..

discussing it and debating it in here today. Let’s not use the red herring of saying we have four strong committee members and that the actions should not and would not influence the decision of the committee. If Mrs Dunne finds that having to wear all the different hats is difficult, as she said, then perhaps she needs to review the wearing of all those hats and how she conducts herself.

She also said that her motivation for standing down was to remove all bias. Well, that is only for Mrs Dunne to know, but the problem is already out there. If it was contained within this place, among the committee, it could have been resolved by the committee, but it was not contained in this place. To use draft variation 200 as an example of other members having personal opinions on such matters is pathetic. No member of this committee, when assessing and working on draft variation 200, put together a premeditated pamphlet to send out to influence the community.

Mrs Dunne: Point of order, Mr Speaker: I think that Mrs Cross is now again straying into the business of the committee if it is established. Expressing a view about my defence as pathetic or otherwise is really a matter for the committee and not for the members in this place at this time.

MR SPEAKER: The Assembly is hearing a debate about whether this ought to go to a committee or not. It is a fine point whether members stray into the area of the committee’s work or not. I would ask members not to deliberately stray into areas that will be the realm of the committee, and to direct their attention to the motion which is before the Assembly.

MRS CROSS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am responding to some of the comments made by Mrs Dunne.

Once again, I stress that the integrity of the committee has been compromised. There appears to have been a clear interference in the committee process. I believe that, although we already have a substantial workload, especially the crossbench in this place, a privileges committee is warranted at this time.

MR HARGREAVES (11.25), in reply: In order to refresh members’ memories, I will place on the record yet again the inquiry’s terms of reference which I believe were compromised almost to the point of being aborted. They state:

The Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory on 21 October 2003, agreed that an inquiry be undertaken into a proposal for a new supermarket to be built next to the Belconnen Fresh Food Markets in Lathlain Street Belconnen. 1,661 residents had submitted a petition to the Assembly requesting that legislation be passed to allow the building of the supermarket.

An examination of the flyer that was produced by a privileges committee will show that there has been a clear breach of those terms of reference.

I will address a couple of the points that were raised earlier by Mr Smyth. He said that Mrs Dunne prepared a flyer when she was approached by the community to do so. Mrs Dunne said that she and others had concocted that idea in her office the day before the flyer was prepared. Those two statements are contradictory. I believe the statement

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