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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1476 ..

Until someone said to me that there is an issue of perceived bias, it had not entered my mind that that was the case. As I said, there was discussion with the select committee. I said to the select committee that I did actually toy with the idea of whether I should put in the crucial words, the parenthetic statement, “which I chair” in respect of the planning and environment committee. This seems to be at the crux of this issue. I actually had a discussion with my staff and with other staff as to whether or not I should put that in the flyer that went out, and we decided that we should for the sake of telling the whole story.

I think it is probably a bit a case of being damned if you do and damned if you don’t. If I had put out that flyer and not said that, I would be criticised for holding back information. I put out the flyer and did say that and I found myself accused and found guilty of contempt. I say “fair cop” and I am willing to accept the stain on my reputation that that entails.

But the issue that is now before us that I should be censured flies in the face of the recommendations of the committee set up by this Assembly. This Assembly thought this was worth investigating and it was investigated. I think everyone who felt the need to do so had their day in court and was heard, and I feel that I had a fair hearing. But the recommendations are twofold: that I was found in contempt but that no further action be taken.

What we have here today is members of the Labor Party caucus flying in the face of the recommendations of a committee established by this place, and in doing so, flying in the face of one of their own members because one of their own members signed up to this report. There is no dissent in this report; there is no demurring. This is a unanimous report.

We have to ask: what is the motivation? The motivation is base politics. It is trying to extract as much vengeance as possible out of this; it is trying to deflect from a whole range of issues that embarrass the government; it is trying to take up the time of the Assembly when there are important issues at hand. As a result of this, we are now trying to exact punishment which was not the recommendation of a committee of this place and this is why members of this place should reject the motion put forward by Mr Wood.

MR HARGREAVES (10.58): I will not go over the facts of the issues which led to the creation of the privileges committee. I think most people are sufficiently aware of them. However, I want to address a number of things which appear to be inconsistent. I want to refer to the report by the Select Committee on Privileges.

Before I do, I would like to respond to the accusation by Mrs Dunne in today’s Canberra Times that this is an attempt by me to take control of the planning and environment committee away from her. It is not so at all, Mr Speaker. I do not wish to take control of anything. But what I would like to do is have the committee take back control. Her own words were “to take control of the planning and environment committee away from her”. She does not have control. It is that perception of control which led to the mistake over Aldi in the first place. Indeed, let me say this: if, in fact, Mrs Dunne does the right thing and resigns as chair of the planning and environment committee, I will not be nominating for the position of chair.

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