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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1486 ..

have been found to be in contempt by the privileges committee and the definition of contempt includes doing something knowingly or unknowingly, not having been aware of the fact that you have done it. Mrs Dunne, the fact is that you have committed a contempt and it has impacted on the committee. I have to say that I have had confirmed to me in the last two days that you really have not understood the gravity of the contempt that you have committed.

MRS CROSS (11.39): As members know, I was away on Tuesday at a family funeral, so I did not have a chance to read the privileges committee report tabled on that day until 3 o’clock this morning at home, having been here until late last night. Contrary to the misinformation by Scott Hannaford in the Canberra Times today, I had not given any comment to anyone or made a decision on what was going to happen if there was a censure moment, so the Canberra Times was negligent in its role. I did talk to Scott Hannaford earlier about it and he told me that he had tried to contact me, but the funny thing is that he forgot to leave his name and number. Someone that has a genuine intent to contact anyone for a comment should follow it through properly, rather than being tokenistic.

When I read the report, I was satisfied with it. I said so to Mrs Dunne this morning. I felt that the report was a good one. I commended Ms Tucker for the report. I thought it was thorough. I was prepared at that stage, even though I had grave concerns, to leave it at that. But at 4 o’clock this morning I read the Canberra Times and I was completely gobsmacked.

I was rather cross—excuse the pun—not only with Scott Hannaford and the Canberra Times for once again neglecting to follow up or get a comment from someone that they were writing about, but also when I read in the article that Mrs Dunne had said that she was not surprised at the move and that it was an attempt by Mr Hargreaves to take control of the planning and environment committee from her. It is not Mr Hargreaves’s decision to do that; it is a committee decision, as it happens.

But there was the quote at the bottom that Mrs Dunne spoke to me about and I did talk to Ms Tucker about it. I went to the source, Mr Hannaford, and said, “Is this a quote? Is this accurate?” He confirmed to me that this quote was accurate. That changed my position somewhat. I thought that, no matter how many times we try to do the right thing, we keep coming up against a brick wall where some people are concerned.

I am going to address some comments that Mr Cornwell made in this place, given his smug delivery earlier in the comfort of his little party over there. These are comments that Mr Cornwell made in this place in November 2003 relating to a finding of contempt concerning Mr Corbell. He said:

The fact is that a contempt has been found but the recommendation is that no further action be taken.

The recommendation was similar to the one in this report. He continued:

What sort of message does this send anybody in this territory coming before a committee of the Assembly? “We can say what we like because, if we are even taken before a Privileges Committee, and that Privileges Committee finds us guilty of contempt, no further action will be taken anyway.” What a weak, wimpish

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