Page 4757 - Week 15 - Thursday, 21 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MOORE (10.59): When Mr Collaery indicated that he was going to put this amendment and I spoke at the in-principle stage, I made it quite clear that it seemed to me to be a reasonable thing. In making such an amendment, I think what Mr Collaery is looking for is openness in this sort of issue, to ensure that the Territory is appropriately protected and that members of this parliament have the right to ask questions of what is, in effect, an investigatory body operating within the Territory. Those things seem to me to be perfectly logical and rational.
I have discussed the issue briefly with our Attorney-General and he has raised some of the problems in this amendment. At this stage I must say that, much as I applaud Mr Collaery's intention, I wonder whether it will achieve what he is attempting to achieve. I agree with what he is trying to achieve; I make that very clear. I am now very interested in having Mr Connolly explain whether or not it will achieve it and why. He has begun to explain that to me in brief terms over the last few minutes, because I was not privy to the information the Liberals obviously had. I have asked Mr Connolly to ensure that that does not happen again, if he would be so kind. I am very interested to hear now what he sees as the difficulties with this amendment.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (11.01): In the earlier debate on this some weeks ago, when Mr Collaery first raised this amendment, I did indicate that, from the Government's perspective, we were not opposed to the principle he was espousing, which was more openness and more accountability, but that we saw real problems with the ACT attempting to go it alone and assert that we would have a greater ability to inquire into the activities of a national body, the National Crime Authority, than either the parliamentary joint committee of the Federal Parliament, which is the body that is charged generally with oversight of the NCA, or any other State parliament.
I said then that, while we had sympathy with the principle, it would be inappropriate for the ACT to try to assert a greater degree of accountability than any other parliament, State or Federal. Essentially, that is the argument I had put in discussions with Mr Stefaniak, as the Liberal Party spokesperson on this issue, and all the time I explained to Mr Collaery, both privately and in the chamber, that that was our view.
There is also a doubt that has been raised by my advisers, and I must say that I concur with that doubt, as to the effect Mr Collaery's amendment would have, if it were passed. The relevant Federal provisions make it an offence to disclose material; they preserve secrecy so that an NCA officer shall not disclose. Were this Assembly to pass a law saying, "You may disclose", and were this parliament to seek to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .