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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Tuesday, 30 March 2004) . . Page.. 1250 ..

in recommending as we have in terms of the question of contempt of the Assembly, of the privileges associated with the parliament.

I might add that we have borrowed matters in that our own privileges standards have been borrowed from the House of Representatives, which was a matter that was examined very carefully by the committee. But the question of privilege is the thing that had to be examined and the question came down to whether there was intent. It is quite obvious that that was not clear and could not be. I think that we have acknowledged that by saying that there was a contempt, but no further action should be taken. Mrs Dunne felt that she was doing the right thing but we, on the other hand, believe that privilege had been breached.

I still believe that we had a line ball situation there and, in defence of Mrs Dunne, she subsequently admitted to making a mistake and joined with the committee in trying to undo any harm that might—I stress the word “might”—have been done. She also, of course, stood down from the inquiry.

I think that the point that the committee made in paragraph 3.10 is important. The paragraph reads:

In the debate on 10 February 2004, the Chair, Mrs Dunne, admitted her “mistake’ and went on to say that “there was no intention to in any way interfere with the proceedings of the Planning and Environment Committee and there is no intention to interfere with the workings of the Assembly”.

That was a perfectly reasonable, legitimate position. Mrs Dunne did not believe that she was doing the wrong thing. It all comes down to the very point that the chair and Ms MacDonald have made that there is an extremely grey area in this whole question that all members need to be aware of, that is, the conflict between being a representative of the community and holding a position of some authority within the Assembly.

I would hope, obviously along with the other members of the committee, that the recommendations of the privileges committee will be followed through, particularly recommendation 2, which reads:

The committee accordingly recommends that some form of continuing professional development in parliamentary procedures and conventions be introduced for Members additional to the new Members seminar.

It could perhaps be incorporated in the new members seminar, Mr Speaker. I would remind members, as if I have to, that in October of this year they will be facing an election and new members will be coming in here. It is important that those members, as well as existing members, be educated in this very grey area between responsibilities to their electorates and responsibilities to committees and how easy it is to overstep the mark, even by accident.

I repeat: there for the grace of God go any of us. It is possible that all of us could have fallen into that error. I therefore believe that the committee has come down sensibly in making the recommendations it has. I do not believe that the matter needs to be pursued any further, except in relation to recommendation 2, which, of course, would involve all members of what I trust will be the new Assembly from October this year.

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