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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Thursday, 19 August 2004) . . Page.. 3967 ..

Mrs Dunne said on the second page of her dissenting report:

… the application should only be rejected if the committee has overwhelming evidence that the applicant is mistaken in matters of fact.

That is not so. The committee may also agree not to proceed if the specific request does not, in the committee’s opinion, involve serious detrimental effect. I will say that again—if the specific request does not involve serious detrimental effect.

I am concerned that Mrs Dunne may have breached standing orders in the provision of detailed information in her dissenting report. She indicated two issues “which prompted Mr Burke’s application”. Either she has deduced that from his submission, in which he has revealed the content of the submission, or she has spoken to Mr Burke. The first instance is a breach of standing orders or a breach of the resolution of continuing effect. The second is a breach of committee procedure. In either case, in my opinion, there is prima facie evidence to warrant an approach to the appropriate authority as to whether the matter warrants giving precedence to a motion to convene a privileges committee.

Further evidence to support such an approach to the proper authority is this statement on the third page of Mrs Dunne’s dissenting report:

1. The former directors of Endoxos have also been informed of the board’s decision but they have not made any comment.

2. Some people who speak Greek have informed me that “Endoxos” translates roughly as “glorious and honourable”. As we can see, nothing could be further from the truth. Those who are responsible, directors and former directors, should hang their heads in shame at these actions.

She went on to say, and this is the salient point:

The Committee could not consider the truth of the statements.

Here we go; she said:

Mr Burke has tendered evidence that the first of these statements is factually incorrect.

That is revealing the content of the submission. Such a privileges committee would need to look at how Mrs Dunne could attest that Mr Burke had tendered evidence.

Mrs Dunne: I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. Mr Hargreaves has mentioned on two or three occasions the possibility of referring this matter to a privileges committee. I seek your guidance. Is it appropriate to do that or should he just put up or shut up? Should he speculate on whether this is a breach of privilege and whether he should write to the Speaker or should he just go about it?

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is perfectly in order for Mr Hargreaves to make reference to that. He does not have to move a substantive motion at this time if he does not wish to

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