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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1481 ..

One does have to ask why this should be the case. Of course, some of this has come out from what Mr Hargreaves has said. It is very apparent. Mr Hargreaves happily quotes, may I suggest selectively, from the committee on privileges report. He quotes a number of points which he sees as damaging to Mrs Dunne. But he does quote rather selectively, Mr Speaker, and he fails to recognise what the committee said in paragraph 4.8. The committee said:

In both instances Mrs Dunne has stated that her genuine intent was to make her opinion known to the public, not to influence the outcome of either the Planning Committee inquiry or this Privileges Committee inquiry.

It goes on to say in paragraph 4.10:

The committee addressed the question of a member’s role as advocate for their electors … and could not agree to the very narrow construct that Mrs Dunne put on advocacy ...

Okay, that is fine. The committee did not agree to that, but Mrs Dunne had one view and we had another. This, of course, has led to the unanimous recommendation of the privileges committee that, whilst the distribution of a flyer at the Belconnen Market was in contempt, no further action be taken. What is going on here now, Mr Speaker?

Mr Quinlan: They are following the Dunne logic.

MR CORNWELL: Mr Quinlan interjects. So what we have got here is revenge, is it, Mr Quinlan? We do not have a judgement based upon these recommendations—no, we have a revenge, a settling of the score. That is very typical, of course, of this Labor Party, even to the extent of rolling one of its own members, Ms MacDonald, who was a member of this committee. Ms MacDonald, I feel for you; I really do.

Mr Hargreaves has stated this already, but I will quote again, what was said at paragraph 5.7 of the committee’s findings:

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 be taken in relation to Mrs Dunne’s transgression.

I can paraphrase at least the first part of that, Mr Speaker, by saying that I feel that Ms MacDonald, having agreed with this recommendation, is also going through an ordeal of being rolled by her party.

Mr Hargreaves talks about the conventions of this place. What possible confidence can this Assembly have in decisions agreed to by all members of a committee if they are to be changed by the party of one of those members? What possible confidence can we have in any decision brought down here? We all know the rules, that if you do not agree with a committee decision then you are entitled to dissent. That is perfectly reasonable. It happens on occasions—not often, I must admit, and that is to the Assembly’s credit.

So we have to ask why this is happening now. As I say, Mr Quinlan has given the game away inasmuch as it is obviously a settling of scores against Mrs Dunne. There is an

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