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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1485 ..

acknowledged that it is serious. She has said today that she accepts the finding of contempt.

I note that there has been the circulation of a newspaper article this morning in which she seemed to be less respectful of the finding. I have to say that that was of concern. I have talked to her about that. My understanding of what happened there is that she did not quite think through what she was saying, but she has made very clear statements in the Assembly this morning clarifying her response to the finding of contempt.

Obviously, Mrs Dunne needs to clarify it to the media as well, because an incorrect impression has been given in the newspaper article today. I am assuming that Mrs Dunne will clarify her response for the Canberra Times, which is the proper thing to do. I am not prepared suddenly to support a censure motion and so on because of that, in light of the fact that she has made very clear statements here today and recognised the need for us all to do more work on understanding the subtleties.

At this point in time we have the findings of the privileges committee that no further action be taken against Mrs Dunne and that there be further professional development. Mrs Dunne has gone through this privileges inquiry, which is a punishment in itself, and I do not think the passage of a censure motion is warranted. Ros Dundas said that she thinks that we are expressing concern through this debate, and we are. Yes, we are all concerned. That is certainly something that has come out of the debate.

Apart from that, I do not think that there is a need to progress further. What the committee chooses to do is, of course, up to the committee, but people should be very careful about being so ready to cast stones in this regard because, if members really wanted me to do so, I could probably pull out a few similar examples for nearly everyone in the place, and recent ones at that.

MS MacDONALD (11.35): I had not intended to rise to speak, but I will be brief. I was the government member on the privileges committee and, yes, its decision was unanimous. I had the feeling at the time that Mrs Dunne did not understand the gravity of the situation. Unfortunately, my reading of the newspaper articles of yesterday and today has just confirmed my suspicion that Mrs Dunne does not understand the gravity of what she has done. Yesterday’s article reads:

Mrs Dunne said she was saddened by the report and her intention had been to inform the electorate of the issues.

“I maintain that this was an attempt to notify members of the public of what was going on. There was no intention to steer the outcome of the committee and in attempting to be as transparent as possible I got into trouble,” she said.

I dispute that comment because the very title of the flyer that Mrs Dunne put out to the public was “Aldi at the Markets?” and in the flyer, as has been said many times, she said, “To help bring Aldi to the Markets, write to the Secretary, Planning and Environment Committee.” If it was not her intention to sway the outcome of the committee, she would not have put down what the final outcome would be.

Turning to today’s newspaper article, Mrs Dunne said at the very end of it, “It’s no skin off my nose and I know I haven’t done anything wrong.” I am sorry, Mrs Dunne, but you

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