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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1473 ..

that she was now aware of the contempt of parliament and I believe this was an attempt to avoid being further held to account.

I will now turn to the conclusion of the privileges committee. Mrs Dunne’s defence was that it was “just a mistake”. That was considered by the committee not to be plausible. Mrs Dunne has had a long service in this Assembly as an advisor to a Liberal chief minister. She has been involved in the affairs of this Assembly over a very long period.

Mr Speaker, this Assembly needs to make a firm statement about members compromising the integrity of the Assembly and we need to reinforce the vigilance that needs to be shown by members and the responsibilities we carry in this small parliament. It is the case that we have multiple roles, but in our 15 years of operation members have separated those multiple roles and focused on the major aim before them—in this case, the role as chair of the committee. That has been the history of this Assembly and there has been an occasion now and then when members have transgressed that role. When that has happened, this Assembly has moved to censure and censures have occurred. Mrs Dunne cannot argue that she did not understand. She is not a fresh-faced new member. She has been around this place for a very long time and she knows how committees, other agencies and this parliament work.

This Assembly now needs to send a message that behaviour of this sort is regarded seriously. All members must regard it as serious. There is a view that the punishment must fit the crime. There has been a conscious attempt by the chair of the committee to interfere most significantly and dramatically with the conduct of an inquiry. I suppose the sin is the same whether you are a member of a committee or the chair of a committee, but I think the chair in particular needs to be acutely aware of their role.

This conduct is not acceptable to the Assembly and I believe we need to assert that today through this censure motion. A mere apology—and, I believe, it was an inadequate apology—and the way in which it was given is insufficient. So today we must send a message that the initial transgression, the second transgression and then the non-acceptance of the privileges committee report are unacceptable behaviour. Therefore, it is incumbent on this Assembly to pass this censure motion.

MRS DUNNE (10.43): It comes as no surprise, Mr Speaker, that the Labor government would move such a motion today. Quite clearly, this matter first arose in mid-January and it was obvious from that time, from the first encounter with the deputy chair of the planning and environment committee, that this was the intended outcome of the process.

Mr Wood stood here today and said, first of all, that this is a serious matter. Yes, it is, Mr Speaker. This is a serious matter and this is why I place on record, for I think the third time in this place—and it is on the record of the planning and environment committee—my hearty apologies for the contempt. The committee on privileges has found that a contempt was committed. As I said the other day, I think there is a difference of opinion about motivation, but if the committee of the Assembly has found this is the case, I accept that judgement. I am not happy about it, I feel wounded by it, but this is not about ego, this is about admitting when you do something wrong.

When this was first raised with me, I recognised that there was a possibility of an apprehension of bias, and I apologise for that. I made recommendations to the committee

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