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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Thursday, 11 March 2004) . . Page.. 1057 ..

procedures meeting a couple of days ago that it might be on. I have not heard any of the content. I have not heard any of the intention or any of the detail at all. One would assume that I, as a deputy chair of the committee, might be consulted to see whether I felt that it was appropriate that the committee consider that particular inquiry, particularly when this has been moved by the chair of that committee. The chair holds either my position as deputy chair or the whole committee in gross contempt, because I know that my fellow committee members have not been consulted about this.

Committees are not about taking up the cudgels on behalf of particular person or a particular company; we talk about advising the Assembly and the government about policy or procedure. I have not heard anything from Mrs Dunne’s dissertation this morning to indicate to me that there was anything in the process, in the rules or in the procedures that was breached. I did not hear anything like that. All I heard was that there was a company wanting to build aged care facilities on a disused part of the Belconnen Golf Course. That process in fact concerns me very greatly. We are not seeing a committee being used to examine process; we are seeing a committee being used by the chair of that committee to achieve a particular aim, to change a particular government decision.

In fact, the content of Mrs Dunne’s speech goes to the heart of that. She has indicated—in no uncertain terms in my view; and Hansard will bear this out no doubt after examination by various people—that we should allow a specific developer to go and develop something on a particular site. That particular process has a smell about it. We just had a conflict within the planning and environment committee over just that approach, to the extent where the chair stepped down from an inquiry because of a perceived bias. What we are seeing in morning’s debate is perceived bias. Now, I happen to—my personal view—

Mrs Dunne: I rise on a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your ruling on whether it is appropriate for Mr Hargreaves to make assertions of bias or perceived bias in the debate.

MR HARGREAVES: On the point of order, Mr Speaker, if I may.

MR SPEAKER: Sure, Mr Hargreaves.

MR HARGREAVES: I am not referring to matters before any select committee of this Assembly. I am referring to correspondence that the planning and environment committee sent to other people about its lack of bias.

MR SPEAKER: I take it that the imputation directed at Mrs Dunne was that there was a perceived bias.

Mrs Dunne: And in this context, not in a previous context. Mr Hargreaves was imputing that I had a bias or a perceived bias in this matter, not in relation to another matter before a committee.

MR HARGREAVES: I fail to see how it could be out of order, Mr Speaker. If I am advising this chamber of my concerns of a perception of bias before an inquiry is about to be instigated, I think it appropriate that I share that concern with the Assembly before

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