Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2642 ..
MS TUCKER
(continuing):(iv) that the interference related to the member's duties as a member of the Assembly not to any other area of responsibility or activity.
Looking to the three instances in Mr Smyth's amendment, I will speak firstly to the first one, which is about the refusal of Mr Wood to answer questions of the Select Committee on Estimates. I have concluded after looking at what was said that you would not be able to argue successfully a case for contempt because Mr Wood demonstrated quite clearly that he was attempting to work in good faith with the procedures of the parliament and the duties of members by seeking advice on what he was intending to do from the clerk. I think that the intent part of contempt would not be able to be determined for that reason.
On the second instance-the refusal of Mr Corbell to answer questions of the Select Committee on Estimates-unfortunately, even though I have heard him apologise for it and I appreciate that, I do believe that it would be quite possible to find a case for contempt in what he did in the estimates process because it could be perceived to have been an improper interference in the work of the committee. It was a serious thing in principle not to be giving information to an estimates committee which was set up by the parliament. The intention obviously was there not to give that information.
Whether the intention was there to stop the work of the committee and so on is what the privileges committee will be charged with determining, but I think that there is an arguable case there for saying that it needs further looking at. That, obviously, is what we have to decide here tonight. We do not have to come up with an absolute answer, but we have to work out whether there is a strong enough case to refer an issue to a privileges committee.
The third issue is the creation and distribution of the document known as "Budget Estimates 2003". I think that it is arguable that that also could be perceived to be in contempt of the parliament, because having an instruction not to answer questions implies, and I am not actually making a judgment on this matter, that it was about disrupting the work of the committee. I think that there is a strong enough case there for it also to be referred to this committee to look at in detail.
Obviously, I have a different view on the different sections of the amendment, so I will be asking under standing order 133 that the question be divided when a vote is taken on the amendment.
MRS DUNNE
(9.15): Mr Speaker, I will move serially through these issues, as Ms Tucker did, because they are important, but at the end I would like to have a bit of a wrap-up. On the subject of Mr Wood, he came in here in a theatrical mode, which you see from Mr Wood from time to time, and to quote the bard and amend it a bit, the gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.Mr Wood
: That's always a pathetic argument, even more pathetic tonight.MRS DUNNE
: The intimation of Mr Wood is that he is a righteous man who has been in this Assembly for 13 years, so how could anyone think that good, honest Bill could ever do anything quite like this? Ms Tucker quotes Erskine May and goes to intent. With respect, seeking advice from someone does not mean that you do not have an intent to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .