ACT Legislative Assembly Hansard


Advanced search

Next page . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2009 Week 15 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 5666..


MRS DUNNE (continuing):

minister's attention to part of the ministerial code of conduct which I understand that he signed up to.

MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Sorry, Mrs Dunne. I am sorry, the standing orders do not allow for qualification of withdrawal. It is either withdrawn or it is not.

MRS DUNNE: It is withdrawn, Mr Assistant Speaker, but I do note that the committee—

MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: I repeat my comment, Mrs Dunne. It is not a qualification. You either withdraw it or not.

MRS DUNNE: It is not a qualification. I was going on with my speech.

MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Okay, fine.

MRS DUNNE: I do note that the committee did comment that the code of conduct states:

... in the discharge of his or her public duties, a Minister will not dishonestly or recklessly attack the reputation of any other person.

The report went on to note:

During the hearings of 26 June 2007, the Committee considers that the Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Mr Hargreaves, failed to act in accordance with the Code of Conduct in his dealings with the Estimates Committee.

These are the kinds of attitudes towards Assembly committees that have led me to compose this motion before the Assembly today. Let me go to another element of this motion, that dealing with delivery of reports without fear or favour. In November, Mr Corbell made this extraordinary claim:

It has been quite clear what the agenda has been from Mrs Dunne: they are going to try and pin the political blame on the minister. Ignore the facts, ignore all the evidence, just pin the blame on the minister, because that is what it is all about. It is just a simple sham inquiry to achieve a political end.

Apart from the strong implication that the minister's own colleague Ms Porter in some way was participating in a sham inquiry to achieve a political end, Mr Corbell forgets three vital points: firstly, the JACS committee has equal representation from three parties in the Assembly; secondly, the report of the JACS inquiry into the Alexander Maconochie Centre was agreed unanimously by the three members representing the three parties in the Assembly; and, thirdly, there were no additional or dissenting comments to that report.

If the JACS committee inquiry and report were running to my agenda, it would be the case that I would be the only dissenting member and I would have had to present an additional or dissenting report. Clearly, Mr Corbell does not understand, much less have any respect for, the role of members of the committee.


Next page . . Previous page. . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search


If you have special accessibility requirements in accessing information on this website,
please contact the Assembly on (02) 6205 0439 or send an email toOLA@parliament.act.gov.au
Accessibility | Copyright and Disclaimer Notice | Privacy Policy
© Legislative Assembly for the ACT