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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1498 ..

and then there is all the grey in the middle. The following comment was made by Mr Cornwell in November:

We are the guardians of the contempt procedures in this place. If we do not uphold them, how can we expect any community group to bother with the Assembly. If we do not take it seriously, who will? We must also challenge this absurd majority recommendation to take no action on the contempt, because there is an expectation that the Assembly will and it has a responsibility to do so. If we do not, then we are belittling ourselves. We are suggesting that this Assembly is not important enough: you can do pretty much as you like either before the Assembly itself, which is unlikely, or certainly any of its committees.”

I know that members of committees take their roles very seriously. Is it fair, is it reasonable and, more to the point, is it right that they should have the ground cut from under them in their committee work simply because the majority of members of this committee have given a clear demonstration that anybody in contempt of a committee of this Assembly will not have to worry about further action being taken. I do not believe that this is the approach that this Assembly should adopt in relation to the community, in relation to members or in relation to any member of this so-called executive government.

So which is it, Mr Cornwell, which standard? Is it contempt? If so, do we take action like you said in November 2003, or is it not? There seems to be a contradiction in what you have said in your position today and what you said in November. Of course, today it is understandable that you would get up and support your colleague, an admirable thing to do. However, you were on the committee, you did arrive at a unanimous decision of contempt, and you did not write a dissenting report to say that you did not agree with that finding of contempt. Did he write a dissenting report, Mr Speaker? No. If that is the case, we should follow Mr Cornwell’s suggestion, the honourable suggestion of November 2003, which was that it is was not enough, as he was implying there, that no further action be taken.

It is the decision of the Assembly to do what it does with a committee report. Those of you that have been here a long time know that. We get recommendations in here all the time. It is for the executive to decide what it does with committee reports and it is for members in general to decide what they do with committee reports. They are not gospel. They do not come from God; they come from members of this Assembly for other members to decide what has to be done.

MR WOOD (Minister for Disability, Housing and Community Services, Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and Minister for Arts and Heritage) (12.25): Mr Speaker, in view of previous debates in this place and the need for some reprimand, the government will be supporting the amendment. I do not I know that I will speak again, although I was the mover of the motion, but I indicate our support of the amendment.

MR CORNWELL (12.25): I commend to Mrs Cross my comments in November and suggest that she follow them through.

Question put:

That Ms Dundas’s amendment be agreed to.

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