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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Thursday, 19 August 2004) . . Page.. 3970 ..

the Assembly to that person. I think that that is eminently reasonable and should be supported.

Mrs Dunne was not having a go at people here in her dissenting report. She was merely stating the obvious, that is, that people in this place do have conflicts of interest. Mr Osborne maintained in the last two Assemblies that he had a conflict of interest in relation to gaming machines because he was employed for a number of year as captain-coach or whatever of the West Belconnen football team—indeed, he participated in a few premierships with them. He used that as a reason for not voting on gaming machine issues. There was a conflict of interest there as he saw it and he was most likely right. The Assembly accepted that.

It is quite clear that these things will arise from time to time. Conflicts of interest occasionally arise in cabinet discussions and for occasional things in this Assembly it is right and proper for people to say, “I am in a bit of a conflict of interest situation. I do not think that I will participate in that debate or vote.” On occasions in the past I have seen members other than Mr Osborne deliberately abstain from voting on such issues.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Stefaniak, I call you to order on that. The question of conflict of interest is dealt with under standing order 156. That is a decisions for the Assembly and must be dealt with by a substantive motion. I would not like you to impute anything.

MR STEFANIAK: Yes, I understand that. Mrs Dunne makes a valid point in terms of a jury and associations in relation to this matter. I will just deal with Mrs Dunne’s associations, not with the other ones mentioned. Her association is that she is a colleague of the wife of this individual. That is an association and those things can lead to problems, perceived or otherwise. As to whether, if it were a jury trial, certain persons would be eligible, I would submit that a prudent defence and a prudent prosecution would either challenge or stand aside certain individuals from the jury because of their associations. That would be the right thing to do in terms of the individuals involved. That would be just right and proper. I think Mrs Dunne has made a valid point there and I think that that gives further force to her amendment, together with the points I have raised in relation to the government’s Human Rights Act. I commend those comments to the Assembly.

MRS CROSS (5.42): Mr Speaker, I am not comfortable with this matter, so I am not going to vote on it at this time. I do suggest that the citizen write to the committee again to have this matter reconsidered. That is my position, Mr Speaker.

MRS DUNNE (5.43): I seek leave to speak again to the amendment.

Leave granted.

MRS DUNNE: Mr Speaker, I sought leave because I feel that I must address a couple of issues raised by Mr Hargreaves. As I think almost everyone who has risen to speak on this matter today has said, this is a very difficult issue. There is no doubt that the actual writing of the dissenting comments was exceedingly difficult and took a considerable amount of thought and a little while. It was done to express my extreme dissatisfaction that a member of the public was not being given a fair go. I think that in this place, in this privileged position, we should give a member of the public a fair go.

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