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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1489 ..

Mrs Dunne apologised and indicated that she would step aside as chair of the committee because she realised that what she had done was not appropriate. She said that she had done the wrong thing there and accepted that it was not appropriate, but she had done it in good faith. She accepted that early and stood aside as chair and a member of the committee. I went on the committee in her place. She has apologised again today. I think that that is something that people really need to take into account.

We had a similar situation recently. Being a lawyer, I am a big one for precedent. I think that precedent is very important. We had the case of a couple of ministers getting themselves in hot water as a result of the estimates committee process last year. One minister, Mr Wood, did not go forward to the privileges committee but the matter was debated here. The other minister, Mr Corbell, did and that committee, of which I was a member, brought down its deliberations in November.

The findings of the committee were not unanimous. Two members of the committee, the majority, accepted that there was a contempt, but felt that there should be no further action. I do not mind saying that I felt at the time that there should be some action and that it should be for the Assembly to take it, but I was overruled there and I was overruled in the Assembly. A motion of no confidence put forward by, I think, the Leader of the Opposition in relation to Mr Corbell was defeated.

It is quite clear that the majority of people felt that no further action should be taken there and that it was fine for a committee to recommend that. I did not happen to think so at the time, but that was the view of the majority. This committee unanimously found Mrs Dunne in contempt, but unanimously found that no further action should be taken. Surely, that unanimous report of the committee is sending a very strong message to this Assembly.

I do feel a bit sorry for Ms MacDonald, who was on the committee, as a result of the decisions her party has taken. Ms MacDonald, I would hardly take the Canberra Times, or any other media outlet for that matter, as gospel. They do get things wrong. Even if they get them right, they do not necessarily print everything, so you cannot use the Canberra Times article as an excuse.

Unfortunately, Ms MacDonald got rolled or whatever and her party has now decided that it wants to take this very political action. That is exactly what it is, a political action. I think that that is unfortunate, because it goes against her party’s position in a not dissimilar matter. It may have been a more serious matter because it involved lack of evidence to an Assembly committee. But it was another case of contempt of the Assembly.

The members of her party accepted, rather grudgingly perhaps, that there was a contempt, but decided that no further action should be taken. But here we have them saying, “No, we are not going to accept this unanimous report of the committee, even though one of our own members was on it. We are not going to accept it. Let’s play a bit of politics here; let’s bung in a censure motion.” That is a departure from the precedent they set.

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