Page 4759 - Week 15 - Thursday, 21 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I certainly found somewhat odd Mr Collaery's remarks directed at Mr Stefaniak, accusing him of being somehow under the sway of advice from the government law officers and not fulfilling his role as an opposition member. I think that both Mr Stefaniak and Mr Humphries made it abundantly clear that the Liberal Party had looked at this issue fairly carefully. I discussed it with them.
Mr Collaery: Yes, but they did not discuss it with me.
MR CONNOLLY: They had the benefit of your views in the chamber, Mr Collaery. If they wanted to get additional views from you, no doubt they could have spoken with you. They did seek some additional details from me, which I was happy to give them.
I must admit that there was a slight, if unintended, in that I did not approach Mr Moore, Mr Duby, Ms Maher, Mrs Nolan and Mr Stevenson - I think that is the total number of Independents we now have; it is always hard to tell - for similar discussions. In future I will seek to do that. If any Independent member or party has an issue to raise about government legislation, we are open to talk about it. While many members may have some sympathy with the concept of greater openness, I urge the Assembly to reject this amendment at this time because it is inappropriate.
MR COLLAERY, by leave: If I had had the courtesy of being given a copy of the opinion that was given to my Liberal colleagues, I might be able to respond; but I think I can glean from the Attorney's comments what the argument is. That is, that the provision in the National Crime Authority Act, section 51, says that it is an offence for an officer of the NCA to disclose information, under penalty. That provision is replicated in the Bill before us, so it would be an offence for an NCA official to give out information in an ACT context.
Mr Connolly is saying two things: One, the NCA is a national body and these initiatives need to repose there. I say to that that he overlooks the fact that when it operates within this Territory it comes within the peace, order and good government powers of the Attorney and this Assembly, in our ultimate responsibility. I reject the notion that a national body in this Territory somehow has a fiat that goes over our parliament. There are some serious implications in what Mr Connolly said that I cannot agree with, but at this late hour I will not go on with them. They paint us into a subordinate position.
The next point Mr Connolly makes is that, because of the inconsistency doctrine between Federal and Territory law, a law we passed that was inconsistent with the Federal law could be invalid. There is a very simple answer to that in the opinion provided to the other house by Mr Harry Evans, the Clerk of the Senate. It is an eminent opinion, and I will give a summary of it: Section 51 of the Federal Act could not be inconsistent with a request by a committee of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .