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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1793 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

resolved in order to protect the integrity of the committee system and to protect the integrity of this parliament is for it to be properly investigated by a privileges committee. There is simply no other way.

Why didn't you refer it back to the committee that previously asked the questions? What are Mr Corbell and Mr Rugendyke to do if they, as the government suggests, simply recall Mr Gower and say, "Look, Mr Gower, here is a list of 15 questions we asked you and these are your answers. Can we ask all those questions of you again?" What is the committee to do in those circumstances?

The appropriate process is for this parliament to accept responsibility for its integrity, its reputation, and its processes and for it to investigate the evidence of Mr Gower and the allegation by him that he gave his evidence in the form that he did as a result of representations made to him by the minister which he categorised, in his own words, as pressure. That is the circumstance. A witness appeared before one of the committees of this place and said, "I gave that evidence. I have this opinion. I have made this submission, and this is my opinion. It is an opinion I arrived at as a result of the pressure which the relevant minister put on me to the effect that if I did not agree with his position my community would not have a road built at all along the John Dedman alignment."

This is a most serious matter. There perhaps is no more serious matter that we could consider other than that-that a community group changed its submission to a committee of this place on the basis of the role which the minister played; that in fact the evidence that the committee received is so tainted that it is absolutely worthless.

What is the committee to do with that evidence? How is this parliament to deal with this serious matter? It will deal with it in the way which all other parliaments deal with this sort of issue, by referring it to a privileges committee. That is what every other parliament in Australia would do. That is what this parliament should do.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education) (12.26): I want to contribute briefly to this debate which I have listened to with interest. I think the opposition have got it quite wrong. I would liken this matter perhaps to a matter in a court. To my understanding, the matter of the Gungahlin Drive extension route is still before the urban services committee.

Ms Tucker has read out certain statements which were made and certain questions and answers given at a committee hearing. Subsequent to that event, Mr Speaker, clarifications and other statements have been made. Statements have made for a public forum, statements have been made in public, and statements have been made in writing by two individuals involved, the President and the Secretary of the Gungahlin Community Council.

I have had a lot more experience in courts than anyone else in this place, with the possible exception of Mr Rugendyke who was a police officer for 18 years. I spent probably about the same period as a prosecutor and a defence counsel, on and off. From my experience, I have found that people do not tend to put in writing things that are going to be used in public. That would impinge on the author. People might query whether what they write is accurate or not, unless they actually believe what they write to

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