Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 23 February 2010) . . Page.. 460 ..

Question resolved in the affirmative.

MR SPEAKER: The question now is that Mrs Dunne’s motion, as amended, be agreed to.

MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (11.40): This is an important matter today, as I have said. It is very interesting to see the attitude taken by the government. What we have in the government’s proposal to oppose this privileges committee is a new Labor doctrine that it is not appropriate to deal honestly with the Legislative Assembly. The people of the ACT who pay their wages need to know that, through the statements made today, this government believes that it is not appropriate to deal honestly in this Assembly and in its committees. It sends a very clear message that Jon Stanhope heads an organisation where it is all right if it is not convenient to tell a committee something which the person knows not to be true and never to come back and correct the record.

Mr Stanhope: I thought that was to be a matter of inquiry. You’ve already decided, have you? What’s the inquiry for if you’ve already decided?

MR SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Stanhope. Mrs Dunne.

MRS DUNNE: The fact that the Chief Minister heckles in this way and the fact that the Chief Minister—

Mr Stanhope: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Mr Speaker, we are having an inquiry to investigate these matters. How can any member of the Liberal Party sit on a committee when you have the spokesperson and mover saying it is already decided that he misled? What is the point of an inquiry when the Liberal Party and you, Mr Speaker, have already made public statements stating it as a fact?

MR SPEAKER: Mr Stanhope, what is your point of order? There is none.

Mr Stanhope: I think there is a very relevant point here about process. Mrs Dunne is standing up and having a go at me. Here is the Liberal Party saying we do not need an inquiry because they have already decided on Mr Sullivan’s guilt. So what is the inquiry going to do?

MR SPEAKER: Resume your seat, Mr Stanhope.

Mr Stanhope: How can any of you appear on a committee when you are here publicly stating a conclusion?

MR SPEAKER: Mr Stanhope, is there a standing order under which you wish to raise a point of order? Mrs Dunne, you have the floor.

MRS DUNNE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just to make it perfectly clear for the Chief Minister, who seems to be having trouble with this issue: there was a clear question asked, “Why did you inform the committee that the TOC was not in final form when only three days before it had been approved by the board and you had been authorised to spend the money?” Mr Sullivan, accepting the premise of the question, said:

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video