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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1479 ..

the content, but I care an awful lot for the process of this committee, of this Assembly and this institution—and that is what I am going on about; that is what I find wrong.

To say that you do not recognise that a contempt was perpetrated, after a committee had found otherwise, other than to say, “I’m sorry, there is an inconsistency …” Extension of time granted.) There are so many inconsistencies about this that I am not convinced that the chair of the planning and environment committee actually understands what has gone on.

There has been talk about the blurring of the roles. I do not accept that argument at all. What we are talking about is a breach of the standing in which the parliament and its committees and institutions are held by the community. We need to consider whether or not the punishment fits the crime, as it were.

I refer the Assembly again to the privileges committee’s report and I draw your attention to a couple of issues. Paragraph 5.3 of the report says:

The wording of the flyer was somewhat intimidating in canvassing only one point of view.

The way in which language is used influences people out there in the community, and we need to understand that. Paragraph 5.6 reads:

Mrs Dunne has admitted her “mistake” in confusing her roles …

Okay. When the committee talked about this in the context of the Aldi inquiry, we accepted, as I have said before, that it was the honourable thing to do. But the response was insufficient on the second side of the issue.

I draw members attention to paragraph 5.7, which goes to the point about the committee saying, “No further action.” Paragraph 5.7 states:

This admission on Mrs Dunne’s part together with the ordeal of having to undergo this privileges inquiry has prompted this committee to recommend no further action ...

The ordeal of having to go through a privileges committee inquiry has been regarded by the committee as a sufficient penalty to pay for a contempt of the parliament. I am sorry, Mr Speaker, I do not consider that sufficient. I think that a censure of one’s peers is in fact the appropriate response to somebody who has perpetrated a contempt of parliament. So, Mr Speaker, I would urge members to support this motion. We should understand that we are guardians of the parliamentary process and the propriety that attaches to that.

MR QUINLAN (Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Business and Tourism, and Minister for Sport, Racing and Gaming) (11.11): Mr Speaker, I had not really intended to be involved in the debate but there are a couple of things that ought to be added. I want to refer to some quotations from Mrs Dunne’s contribution a matter of months ago to a motion of want of confidence in Mr Corbell. What she said then is very inconsistent with what she said today. Let me read these quotes from the Hansard. She said:

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