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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Tuesday, 10 February 2004) . . Page.. 5 ..

community’s concept of trust in its parliamentary institutions and that trust has been compromised. It has been compromised by a member who has been entrusted with a senior position, that of committee chair, and yet who has used that position to achieve an outcome in an inquiry. In doing so, that member has not only jeopardised that inquiry, but has also jeopardised the trust the community may have in the integrity and the independence of an Assembly committee.

Page 706 of House of Representatives Practice says that an improper interference in the work of a committee constitutes a contempt of the parliament. The only course of action now is to convene a select committee on privileges to consider whether there has been an act which constitutes a contempt of the Assembly. It should be noted that the principal role of the committee is to determine whether such a contempt did occur and report to the Assembly. Should a committee find that such a contempt did occur, it is not necessary that it recommend a sanction or other action, but it can do so if it desires. The committee would consider the seriousness of the act and I would contend that this act by a chair of a committee is a serious one indeed.

Mr Speaker, I think that the evidence is simple. The proof is contained in the text of the flyer and thus the time taken by a privileges committee inquiry could be quite short. I believe the committee should be able to report to the Assembly by the first and only sitting day in April 2004.

Mr Speaker, I commend the motion to the Assembly.

MR SMYTH (Leader of the Opposition) (10.42): Mr Speaker, contempt is a very serious issue and, when referring issues to a select committee to establish whether a contempt or breach of privilege has occurred, Mr Hargreaves rightly talks of improper interference, but should also have mentioned intent. When we go to these issues, we have to be certain that, should we establish this committee, we have in our minds a very clear purpose—establishing that the intent was deliberate, that the interference was real and that, I believe, the member has made no amends to rectify the situation, which may have simply been the result of an error of judgment.

You have to look at what is happening here. It becomes a tit for tat now, where we had a committee that considered contempt and a member of the Labor Party, a minister, was found guilty of contempt of the Assembly—Minister Corbell. This is their opportunity: “Let’s fly back in and let’s play politics with the integrity of the Assembly.” Hey, we are politicians! It is our occupation but, when you look at the argument that Mr Hargreaves has attempted to establish, you will find that he throws Mr Corbell back into the melting pot, because apparently Mrs Dunne’s sin is that she has expressed a view or preference and has threatened a process, but Mr Corbell has expressed a view—

MR SPEAKER: Order! You might be reflecting on a vote of the Assembly there, Mr Smyth. I caution you against that.

MR SMYTH: No, I am not. I am about to refer to Karralika, Mr Speaker. I will move straight onto Karralika where there is a process set up, established by an act of this place, and where the minister has said, “We will have some consultation but I have already determined the outcome. I am going to call it in.”

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