Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 7 Hansard (6 June) . . Page.. 2062 ..
MR WOOD (continuing):
Mr Humphries, in his speech, says that this is now a debate about ethics. Yes, that is what this privileges committee is going to do-look at the ethics and see whether a contempt occurred, and see whether privileges have been abused. That is what this is about. It is not about a debate on a Liberal staffer, and it is not about an attack on a Liberal staffer. How many times was that used by Mrs Dunne? "This is an attack on a Liberal staffer." Well what about the attack on me? What about that? Doesn't that concern you?
I feel attacked. I wish the whole thing had never happened-I do not really want to know about it. But, in the interests of what happens in this Assembly, we have to follow it through. Especially in this place we have to follow it through, because I maintain that confidentiality is important. I argue that propriety and decency are important. I am modest in my claims, I believe, but I would expect that every member, every staffer in this place, would behave as my staffer and my office behaved.
Amendments agreed to.
That the motion, as amended, be agreed to.
The Assembly voted-
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Office of the Speaker and office of the Secretariat-criticism
MR SPEAKER: Members, during the debate on the matter that has just been resolved, I became concerned that either the office of the Speaker or the office of the Clerk might be impugned by some of the things that were said.
I want it made clear, and clearly understood, that this was a matter that was conducted in its primary stages by the Clerk, after the Clerk had been approached by a staff member. At various stages, the Clerk consulted with me-from late afternoon/early evening on 27 February. There were inquiries conducted within InTACT, and at 10 pm on 27 February the matter was referred to the police by the Clerk. That needs to be clearly understood.