Page 3584 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 8 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Connolly has described Mr Humphries' amendment as "the cheapest political shot I've ever heard of".
He said the Government planned to amend the Bail Act and that Mr Humphries had been told this on Friday but he had plagiarised it.
Madam Speaker, an allegation of plagiarism is a fairly serious one to level at anybody, and I want to respond to that allegation. The comments arise out of a meeting Mr Connolly had with me and Ms Szuty in his office on 27 November. Mr Connolly indicated at that meeting that he would be pursuing urgent amendments to the Bail Act to remove breaches of domestic violence protection orders from the operation of section 7 of the Bail Act. Apparently, the comments that are quoted in the Canberra Times are an indication that he believes, or believed, that on hearing his comments I ran off and had my own amendments drafted along the same lines.
I want to table some letters which indicate that that clearly was not the case. I seek leave to table a letter to the Clerk of the Assembly, dated 14 August 1992, in which I commissioned amendments to the Domestic Violence Act; a letter to Mr Richard Sergi, of Parliamentary Counsel, on 6 November 1992, in which I agreed that the amendments should be made to the Bail Act rather than to the Domestic Violence Act; and a further letter from Parliamentary Counsel dated 27 November - the Friday in question - enclosing a copy of those amendments.
Leave granted.
MR HUMPHRIES: Thank you, members. Madam Speaker, this correspondence makes it quite clear that the amendments to which Mr Connolly referred in his remarks in the newspaper on 2 December were commissioned by me more than three months before the Attorney-General advised me in his office of his intention to similarly amend the Bill. It is coincidental that both Bills have the effect of correcting deficiencies in the Bail Act which we passed earlier this year. I think Mr Connolly's amendment is intentional, whereas mine was unintentional. I might say, Madam Speaker, that, if I did plagiarise Mr Connolly's idea, then Mr Connolly's Bill will be substantially the same as mine when he presents it in the Assembly later today. I suspect that that will not be the case. If it is not, I suggest that it would be in order for the Minister to withdraw the statement that I somehow cribbed my Bill from his.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services): I seek leave to make a statement under standing order 46.
Leave granted.
MR CONNOLLY: Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to what Mr Humphries had to say. Given his explanation of the work he has had done by Parliamentary Counsel, members will understand that there is a very strict wall between my role as Attorney-General responsible for Parliamentary Counsel and what Parliamentary Counsel do for private members. I was advised by the journalist that there was some public concern about this unintended oversight in relation to the Bail Act. I was also informed by the journalist from the Canberra Times that Mr Humphries had issued a statement to say that he was going to fix the problem, which resulted in the words he has just quoted.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .