Page 4083 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 22 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
it was apparently from the PJC or in connection therewith. I mean no disrespect to that parliament, but those leakages did occur. That has resulted in something of a backlash, in my view. Subsequently, the National Crime Authority refused to appear and give evidence to the PJC of the other parliament.
It is said that the secrecy provision in section 51 of the parent Act, reflected in clause 29 of the Bill before us tonight, overrode the powers of parliament. I do not agree with that. I am very much of the view that there has been a gross rejection of the ultimate powers of parliament where those matters occur. The immunities given to parliamentarians flow down to us from the Bill of Rights of 1688, and it is clear to me that if someone divulges information to a parliamentary committee that person should not be impeached under clause 29 of this Bill or section 51 in relation to the other parliament.
I believe that appearance before properly controlled bodies is essential to the proper accountability of the NCA. At the moment there are no express words in clause 29 withdrawing the powers of this Assembly. I say to members: Look at clause 29 of the Bill before you. The Federal Attorney-General, supported by his Solicitor-General, Gavan Griffith, gave the view that section 51 overrode the powers of the Federal Parliament.
Clause 29 is similarly drawn, and I warn members that, unless there is a clear exclusion, we could be excluded as an Assembly, in a select committee situation with proper confidential machinery, from knowing what is going on in terms of the structure and the mission statement and other issues to do with the NCA. I am not suggesting at all that a committee should want to look at operational intelligence matters. This works effectively for defence and foreign affairs and ASIO on the hill, and clearly it should work properly here.
It has been argued that the IGC provides sufficient monitoring of the operational work of the NCA. With that I agree; but clearly the people need to have a greater purview of its operations, and I will give an example. It is conceivable that a national political party could become the subject of an NCA operation. Were that to be the case, and if the IGC were composed mostly of members of that national political party, you could have quite a conflict of interest in information available to the committee.
I will have more to say in the detail stage of the Bill; I do not have time to complete my speech. However, I support the views of the eminent Clerk of the Senate, Mr Harry Evans, when he made clear that parliamentary access to the workings of statutory bodies of this nature is paramount and should occur. I foreshadow appropriate amendments to the Bill at the detail stage. I otherwise commend this Bill to the house. Corruption issues were a plank for us
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .