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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1493 ..

once a precedent is set, changing the precedent or modifying the precedent is an interesting process.

Yes, we did move a motion of no confidence in Mr Corbell. I make the point, Mr Speaker, because at that time a member of the committee, who happened to be the Liberal member of the committee, actually dissented from that committee’s report. That member did not accept it. The difference with this report is that you have a unanimous, an uncontested, report with two recommendations. Today we have had from Ms MacDonald some bleating about how she has reread, she has reconsidered and she has done other things, and there is an article in the paper this morning that gives her more concern, but when I look at the report I cannot see a dissenting report from Ms MacDonald. There is none.

I cannot see in it commentary made that would support the notion that Ms MacDonald now puts forward as her excuse for having run with the hares and now wanting to hunt with the hounds. I looked for it but did not find any argument from Ms MacDonald. We had acceptance by Ms Macdonald that there was a contempt but there should be no punishment, except Ms MacDonald’s acceptance has now been rejected by her own colleagues. The big loser today, I suspect, is Ms MacDonald, because she has been shown to have one opinion but that opinion has been trodden over by her own party.

Mr Quinlan referred to the case involving Mr Corbell and accused us of not being consistent. I will say two things in defence of our actions at that stage. Firstly, the report was not unanimous in the findings against Mr Corbell in regard to punishment. It was unanimous in that everybody agreed that there was a contempt, but there was a dissenting report that said that there should be punishment for a minister, because ministers hold more authority in their senior positions in this place.

The Assembly set the precedent of finding contempt and not having punishment. We did not accept that. We attempted to show no confidence. We simply said, “No, that’s not appropriate. We recommend that we go with grave concern.” We have to live by that—I am not going to reflect on that decision of the Assembly—but so do the members opposite, and it is the members opposite who are now picking and choosing. We are bound by the decision of the committee; we accept that. Those opposite are choosing not to accept that, and they have changed their position to go on the attack, as it were.

Mr Wood recited the facts and concluded that Mrs Dunne must be punished. At paragraph 5.7, the committee said:

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.

The committee went on to say—I think that this is what we need to concentrate on—in paragraph 5.9:

There have been some worrying aspects to this inquiry not the least of which that a member could make one simple mistake (see paragraph 3.10) which can put her in contempt of the Assembly. It is obvious to the committee that there is a need for continuing professional development for Members especially in relation to the various roles members must play and the distinction between those roles.

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