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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1915 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

The appropriate committee in any parliament in Australia to investigate such a suggestion is a committee of privileges. It is what every other parliament does. It is a nonsense for that matter to be returned to the committee from whence the allegation came, to the same three people who took that evidence. To do what? To have the record changed? That does not do anything about the question of possible breach of privilege. It does not go to the question of privilege. It is just a question of a witness coming back before a committee and either confirming his evidence-one finds it very hard to understand on what basis he will not confirm this evidence-or resiling from his evidence and admitting that he misled the committee.

There are certain other issues around this particular evidence that also need to be investigated, namely, the responses that the minister has given through his press release-other responses have been given by other persons-and the involvement of the minister and others in relation to the apparent change of heart that the witness suffered. These matters go to questions of privilege. They go to questions of privilege of the parliament and they should be investigated by a committee of privileges. Any other suggestion really is derisory, does not protect the privileges of this place, and is a serious attack on the integrity of this institution.

Question put:

The Assembly voted-

Ayes, 8  	Noes, 9

Mr Berry  	Ms Carnell
Mr Corbell  	Mr Cornwell
Mr Hargreaves  	Mr Hird
Mr Kaine  	Mr Humphries
Mr Quinlan  	Mr Moore
Mr Stanhope  	Mr Osborne
Ms Tucker  	Mr Rugendyke
Mr Wood  	Mr Smyth
 		Mr Stefaniak

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