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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Tuesday, 30 March 2004) . . Page.. 1252 ..

This staffer was an adviser to senior members of the government of the day and, as senior members of the government, they were not unaware of the protocols of this place, the conventions of this place. The situation would not have been the same if, for example, Ms Dundas had done so two months after being elected. The position here is completely different.

In my view, Mr Cornwell misrepresented what is said in this report. He talked about there being grey areas and the committee not being clear about intent. The committee did not say that at all, Mr Speaker. Paragraph 5.1 reads:

The committee is of the view that the distribution of the leaflet was “likely to amount to an improper interference with the free exercise by…a committee of its authority or functions”; that this interference was serious; and that there was a clear intent shown by the Chair…through the wording of the leaflet, to create this interference…

There is nothing grey about that. There is nothing unclear about that. It is crystal clear.

Mr Cornwell said that we have a lineball situation here in terms of the responsibilities of a member in his or her capacity as a local representative, as a committee member and as a shadow minister. I do not accept that there is a lack of clarity with that; I do not accept that one bit. I particularly do not accept it with respect to people who have had employment in this place for five years or so.

In fact, if members do not understand their role as a member of a committee, let alone the chair of a committee, the propriety which has to go with that membership, their role as a local member and the conflicts which may exist between those roles and a shadow portfolio, those members ought to seriously consider the roles that they take on. It would seem to me to be blindingly obvious that, if a person is shadow minister for planning and the chair of a planning committee, every single day of his or her life in this Assembly that person ought to be on guard against a possible conflict.

The flyer actually talked about Mrs Dunne being the chair of the planning committee and the chair has been saying in the media ad nauseam that she is the shadow planning spokesman. Mrs Cross said that she could not believe that the chair could be that silly, to paraphrase her. I do not believe it, either. I do not believe that Mrs Dunne would be so naive; I seriously do not.

I turn to the committee’s recommendation that no further action be taken. I am not quite so sure about that. For example, I would have been happy to have seen in there a recommendation that the member consider her position with regard to her shadow portfolio and the role of the committee she chairs. Mr Cornwell and the committee both said that Mrs Dunne’s standing down from the committee fixed that problem. It certainly fixed it for that inquiry. I have said in this place that it was the honourable thing to do and I applaud it.

But that is not the end of the story. That is only the end of the story with respect to that specific inquiry, not about the parliamentary integrity of committee work. Parliamentary integrity was put at serious risk here and my concerns about that in bringing it to the attention of a committee have been sustained. If anybody has been vindicated,

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