Page 5101 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 28 November 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
whether or not there are things that we need to do to make sure that our procedures are safe. But it is important for the Assembly to consider whether or not the decision that was made in 2015 was safe and whether there was anything that could have been done differently that would have made sure that our decision was safe.
Again, this is not a reflection on anyone’s eligibility to sit in the Senate. This is a reflection on our capacity in this Assembly to make good decisions. The standing orders are quite clear about the vast array of things which may be a contempt of the Assembly but the most important one, set out in standing order 277(a), is interference with the Assembly. The standing order states:
A person shall not improperly interfere with the free exercise by the Assembly or a committee of its authority, or with the free performance by a Member of the Member’s duties as a Member.
Madam Speaker, if we as members in this place were provided with information which is inaccurate, whether intentionally or not—I do not believe that any of the information provided in March 2015 was intentionally inaccurate, but the potential is that it is now inaccurate—we were not able to properly conduct our duties and, therefore, members of the Assembly may have been interfered with. I am couching this in quite conditional terms.
We as a group do not know. But we as a group are responsible for ensuring that we are not subject to contempt. We as a group are responsible for ensuring that when we convey a message to the Governor-General it is based on the best possible facts available to us. If we do not do that, we are at risk of misleading the Governor-General. These matters are of the utmost importance. They should be all dealt with in accordance with the standing orders and in accordance with our established procedures in relation to privilege.
Like you, Madam Speaker, I do not know what the outcome of such an inquiry would be. But I think it would be remiss of us not to subject these issues to inquiry. I made it very clear in my letter to you that the issues were whether or not the Assembly had been led to make a decision based on erroneous information—I do not know, but we should find out—and whether or not that information, if it were erroneous, could have been rectified at a later date and whether there is a remedy for this.
That remedy may be as simple as, if it turns out to be erroneous, the people who made the statutory declaration and/or tabled the statutory declaration having to apologise to this place for not correcting the record sooner and also correcting the record with the Governor-General and apologising to the Governor-General for perhaps inadvertently misleading him.
These are important matters that do not relate to any particular person but relate entirely to our procedures and the way we manage ourselves in this place. If we do not manage ourselves to ensure that our role as members is not interfered with and that the information that we get is correct, and if it is not correct that it is corrected at the first possible opportunity, we are remiss and we do not serve the people of the ACT well.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video