Page 3176 - Week 10 - Thursday, 16 September 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON (11.19): I think we have all noticed that since Mr Lamont spoke the tone of the debate has taken a decided plunge. I think that is unfortunate.
Mr Lamont: I apologise.
MR STEVENSON: Mr Lamont apologises. I think that members would accept that. I really think it is unfortunate.
Mr Lamont: It was unintentional.
MR STEVENSON: Okay. Two very important points are raised in this general discussion. They both relate to freedom of speech; the right of members of parliament to speak without fear or favour, and the right of a citizen or an organisation to reply to allegations that they claim are not true. Mr Lamont specifically mentioned cases, members and people. In my case he said that I could have tempered my remarks had more investigation been done by the people who supplied the information in the first place. Perhaps I should put on record who supplied the information in the first place. It was the internal security unit of the Victoria Police Force, headed by a superintendent, and someone, they stated in writing, who was a consultant working with them. I think we are all aware that this particular individual had access to police intelligence computers. That is why there are, even to this day, continuing investigations in the police force and in the Government in Victoria.
There were certain methods by which that information could have been uncovered, and I specify two. First, the Government has the power, the understanding and the contacts to gain the necessary information and to thoroughly check these matters out. It would have been of great assistance to me had that occurred. Secondly, as far as the character of the person supplying me with the information is concerned, that could have been looked at a little bit earlier had the information given to the Attorney-General of that time, Bernard Collaery, been given to me earlier on.
Mr Berry: Yes, but you do not make a practice of looking at the character of the people you hang around with very much.
MR STEVENSON: Mr Berry continually interjects, making imputations against people. One thing that I have tried to do throughout my career in this Assembly, and before it, is to play the ball and not the man. As someone mentioned to me yesterday, it is interesting that, when Labor members stand up, almost inevitably they start off with an attack on one of the members. Someone suggested to me that it is in the manual, the rule book, the instruction book. I suppose that the best thing we can do to find out whether or not that is true is to listen to the members and hear how they talk.
We had a debate on these matters. Obviously every member has freedom of speech in this Assembly to bring up the matters that Mr Lamont brought up; but I would ask, "Has that added to the debate or not?". I think most people would say that it has not. By all means, matters can be aired; and, if members think they need to be, by all means they will be. They will be if they are persistent, like I will be. Sooner or later I will get aired that matter that is private members business No. 6 - make no mistake - regardless of how many times I am gagged in this Assembly, regardless of how many times I do not have freedom of speech by
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .