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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Tuesday, 10 February 2004) . . Page.. 8 ..

going to say that, on these issues, when approached by the community, we cannot go out and say where we stand?

This is a ridiculous motion, Mr Speaker, because it does not address the issue of intent. What did Mrs Dunne intend by doing this? She wanted more submissions from the community. What is wrong with a committee seeking more submissions? We have, on numerous occasions, either in this place or outside while people are sitting on inquiries, had members expressing opinions about where their party stood on an issue. That is entirely appropriate—they should and they must. If we are all going to be victims of the fact that this is a small Assembly, then we seriously need to look at the committee system, because this motion will neuter the Assembly system of committees as it will prevent people doing their jobs.

You might make a small case, Mr Speaker, that perhaps there was a lapse of judgment. If that is the case, you then have to look at what occurred when it was brought to the attention of the member. Redress was made. Mrs Dunne will stand aside from the chair for the duration of this inquiry. She is quite willing to do that. The committee, I understand, has resolved to write to all those who have been affected to ask what they want. Not one, it is my understanding, has responded to the committee question, “Do you feel slighted, affected, somehow compromised or denied natural justice or feel that you will not get a fair hearing or that you will get a warped view from the committee?” None have responded.

Mrs Dunne occupies a quarter of the committee’s voting capacity. Three other members have the right to vote. This position on Aldi that she has adopted on behalf of the Liberal Party, which any of us would have enunciated—Mr Stefaniak has, I have, we all have—she has enunciated several times on our behalf, outside the place, even inside the place, so you do not have the intent. I do not believe you have a case proven that there has been any improper interference, and I do not believe that what we will get out of this will be of any value in regard to how the Assembly operates or of any value, in particular, in regard to how the committee system operates.

The opposition will be opposing this motion.

MS DUNDAS (10.52): I rise to speak briefly. When we have a matter of contempt and a matter of privilege before us I think it is important that we put on the record why we vote the way we do. Mr Smyth has raised some interesting points about whether or not we can establish the intent behind the production of this leaflet, and whether or not we can answer the question of whether it was improper interference. I think that is why we need to have a committee of privilege to look into this, so it can fully explore what the member was intending when this leaflet was circulated, and whether or not it did interfere not only with the work of the committee, but with the standing of the committee in the community.

I think those questions are best answered by an inquiry into privilege, as would be proper practice here and in other Assemblies. However, I think this debate and the time that it will take has shown the need to fast-track the implementation of the recommendations of privileges committee number 2, which included recommendations about changing the way privileges committees are established and operated. I hope these will allow us more time here in the Assembly to debate legislative issues.

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