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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 10 Hansard (18 October) . . Page.. 3196 ..

MR HIRD (continuing):

the committee's secretariat and my colleagues Mr Corbell and Mr Rugendyke for the professional way that they handled this sensitive matter. I commend the report to the house.

MR CORBELL (12.43): Mr Speaker, this certainly was an interesting but difficult and sensitive inquiry. Having initially raised this matter in the Assembly, I certainly took the opportunity to explore fully the range of issues that was ultimately referred to the standing committee-after some flipping and flopping.

The conclusions that the committee has drawn are, I think, the only reasonable ones to draw in the circumstances. And I think it is important to note that the committee is unable to conclude whether an improper influence did or did not occur. The evidence remains unclear and contradictory. For that reason, the standing committee was simply not in a position to say that something definitely did or did not happen in relation to the allegation made by the witness at the standing committee's hearing on the John Dedman Parkway issue some months ago now.

Ultimately it will be for individual members to judge the strength and validity of the evidence provided to the committee by Mr Gower. The committee made considerable efforts to seek clarification of Mr Gower's comments to the committee. On each occasion, whenever we received a response the contradiction in his evidence remained. The committee considered carefully the issue of actually calling Mr Gower and asking further questions of him. Having considered that matter, the committee felt that that was not going to assist the committee further in its resolution of this matter. In fact, I think, on balance-and I am sure Mr Rugendyke and Mr Hird will agree with me that it was on balance-it was almost certain that confusion would still remain, if not become further entrenched.

For that reason, it is indeed up to individual members to decide upon the strength and validity of the evidence presented to the committee by Mr Gower. There will, I think, always remain a question mark over whether or not an improper influence took place, but it is simply not possible for the committee to draw a conclusion one way or another.

Mr Speaker, it is important to note also that the committee has decided to make the second of its recommendations in relation to evidence given before Assembly committees. Members will be aware that committees of this place do have the power to swear witnesses, but this is not a process that to my knowledge has ever been undertaken by an Assembly committee since self-government.

The committee considered the option of making the recommendation that committees should swear witnesses. But, on reflection, the committee considered that it was an overly legalistic process which perhaps would intimidate witnesses to an extent that would be unhelpful in the information-gathering process that committees undertake. The committee was therefore grateful-and I certainly was as a member of the committee-for the suggestion that committees instead should consider using a set form of words advising witnesses on their responsibilities and rights when giving evidence before parliamentary committees.

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