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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Tuesday, 10 February 2004) . . Page.. 6 ..

Mr Corbell: Point of order, Mr Speaker: Mr Smyth should address the substance of the matter, which is the proposal that the actions of Mrs Dunne be referred to a committee of privileges.

MR SPEAKER: Order! Point taken.

MR SMYTH: The comparison is real because—

MR SPEAKER: Mr Smyth, remain relevant.

MR SMYTH: It is absolutely relevant because members are entitled to urge the community to participate. Indeed, all the committee members have, I believe, a role, a right and an obligation to urge the community to participate in the committee process. If we are going to take that right and obligation away from committee members, then you have to question what it is that the committees are seeking to achieve.

Mr Hargreaves then goes on with his weak argument to say that then we have this terrible overlap. We all have the terrible overlap: there are only 17 of us and the comparison is that I am on the Public Accounts Committee, but I have two other chairs as members. There is overlap in everything everyone does in this place every day, simply because of the smallness of the Assembly. If overlap is a sin, then we are all going to be guilty of a sin.

However, he takes it further: he says that it overlaps with Mrs Dunne’s role as the opposition spokesperson for planning. Isn’t that interesting? Mr Hargreaves, in opposition, used to be on the JACS committee looking at law and order issues. Who was the law and order spokesperson for the opposition at that time? Mr Hargreaves. To have that sort of overlap is unavoidable in an Assembly of this size.

However, you also have to look at what happens when matters are brought to your attention. I understand that some members were not very concerned about this, but obviously Mr Hargreaves was. However, what has Mrs Dunne done since it occurred? I understand that the committee has written to all those who made submissions asking whether they are concerned about this. I understand there has not been a single response; so it does not appear that the community is concerned about this. Mrs Dunne has also stood aside, which is something Minister Corbell refused to do and never did when he was accused of contempt. If you cannot establish intent and you cannot establish improper interference, you should not be having a select committee to consider contempt.

The problem here is that the politics would get in the way. Here we are with Mr Hargreaves willing to cause the opposition some grief. He has taken his opportunities as they have presented and we accept that. That is politics. That is what we do in this place. But what we have to do, members, through you, Mr Speaker, when we refer something to a committee that considers contempt, and very few committees concerned with contempt have been established in this place, is we have to be certain in our own minds that this was intended, that we can establish the intent—I find no case for that established—and that it really was improper interference.

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