Page 334 - Week 01 - Thursday, 14 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Speaker, it would be quite improper, in my view, at this stage, for this Assembly to make a decision on this motion. I foreshadow that, unless someone else does it, one of my colleagues will move a motion to adjourn Mr Moore's motion at this stage simply because, to start with, I do not have the Westpac papers, the communications, for and against, with me in the chamber. I did not have adequate notice of Mr Moore's motion - not that he is obliged to provide that to me.
Mr Speaker, I stress again that the Government might reconsider its position on the issue of public interest and legal professional privilege were a court or were the Government to be apprised of any issues that suggested that the matter of public interest and issues of legal professional privilege would be outweighed by evidence of an impropriety in those relationships I have referred to. So, Mr Speaker, I oppose the motion at this stage and I foreshadow that the Government will move to adjourn this matter.
MR CONNOLLY (4.42): Mr Speaker, parliamentary privilege is a very great privilege, but it carries with it a very great responsibility. It would be most improper for members of a parliament protected by that privilege to abuse that power. The sub judice rule is not so much a rule of law perhaps as a convention. There has been a continuing debate in English and Australian constitutional history as to who is supreme - parliament or the courts. The sub judice rule, effectively, is parliament not saying to the courts, "You are supreme", but saying, "We will respect your affairs and not use our privilege to interfere in them".
On this issue of the Westpac documents, the Opposition's inclination at this stage is similar to that of the Government. I have not had the benefit of seeing an opinion that I understand has been prepared by Mr Charles, of queen's counsel, for Westpac. The Attorney-General has indicated that he will make that available to us. I welcome the Government's indication that this debate will be adjourned so that we can look more carefully at it, but I do want to say from the Opposition's point of view that the argument should not be accepted that legal professional privilege is some privilege enjoyed by the legal profession and that the public interest is something to be weighed against legal professional privilege.
Legal professional privilege, Mr Speaker, is a privilege of the client, of the citizen. It is your right when you go to a lawyer and seek counsel to have total privacy on the advice that is given to you. The reasons for that are obvious. If there was not that right of total privacy in the advice that you get from a lawyer, a lawyer would be reluctant to give you frank and honest advice, and that would act to the very severe detriment of any person seeking legal advice. Any of us, any citizen of the ACT, who consults a lawyer and obtains advice, would be horrified if in this place that advice were tendered and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .