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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1478 ..

there was clear intent. That flies in the face of what Mrs Dunne constantly insists in the media.

Mr Speaker, as I have said, I was quoted in the Canberra Times as saying that the community’s faith in the integrity of the committee process has been harmed. I think it has been and it will be further harmed unless this Assembly makes a very firm statement.

There has been talk about providing information for an induction program. Such a program should also include what happens if the rules are breached. It is pointless having rules if you do not say what will happen to you if you breach them. We need to be as firm as we can about this. I feel very sincerely that the trust the community has in the committee system has been betrayed; and I have to say the trust that committee members have in the chair has been grossly compromised.

I think the comment that really got me going was when Mrs Dunne said, “It’s no skin off my nose and I know I haven’t done anything wrong.” You can say that she might have been slightly misquoted perhaps, but I have to say that people do not misquote sayings like “It’s no skin off my nose”. It really does not matter much to me whether she is referring to the privileges committee or this censure motion, it would be a heck of a lot of skin off my nose in either case. She is also reported as saying, “And I know that I haven’t done anything wrong.” If we are talking about the privileges committee, what part of a privileges report don’t you understand? This is what I mean when we say we just don’t get it.

Mr Speaker, it is fine to stand up and say, “I’m sorry, I’m sorry, I’m sorry,” but the punishment should fit the crime. There is a certain contradiction. I would like to quote from the Hansard of 18 November 2003 when there was an all-out attack on my colleague the Minister for Planning. You might recall that a contempt was found and a successful censure followed. After quoting Erskine May, Mrs Dunne said:

On this occasion, the recalcitrant minister, who did everything he could to avoid questioning on the day, should be found guilty. He has been found guilty of contempt and he should be punished in the appropriate way, as precedent would set down, by either having the courage to resign himself, showing that he is a man. If he does not, the Chief Minister should have the courage to sack him and show that he is a man. If that does not happen, this place should find want of confidence in the minister and then he should resign.

As precedent shows, there has been one other case of contempt brought before this place where a contempt was found, and the person lost his job. He resigned. He did the right thing and walked out of this building ...

Mr Speaker, Mrs Dunne is saying that we should have one attitude towards contempt which has been declared by a committee in this place and that we should pass a want of confidence motion—indeed, that was reduced to a censure motion and passed in this place. In other words, Mr Speaker, the precedence in this place is that where a contempt by a member has been found then a censure will almost automatically follow. I suggest to members that that is in fact an appropriate course of action.

Mr Speaker, this is a sad and sorry affair. Mrs Dunne can slag off at me as much as she likes but I have to tell you and members that I care not for the Aldi issue, I care not for

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