Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 78 ..

MS FOLLETT (continuing):

I believe apply. In many respects they are somewhat similar to those put forward by Mr Humphries, in that both of us consider that the actions which have given rise to legal representation must have been incurred in the course of a member's duty before any legal assistance from the public purse could even be considered. It is my view that Mr De Domenico's actions quite clearly related to his personal behaviour, not to his public duty.

I have also considered, Mr Speaker, that it is only reasonable and in the taxpayer's interest that we should consider the level of representation undertaken by a Minister. In Mr De Domenico's case, the forum for which he obtained legal representation is a forum where legal representation is not required. Indeed, legal representation has to be the subject of special permission if any party before the Discrimination Commissioner seeks to have such representation. Mr De Domenico had to apply for special permission to be so represented. The complainant in the matter had no such representation, nor could she afford it. So, Mr Speaker, I believe that it is very important that we do not allow for a retrospective decision on this matter.

The Chief Minister, in fact, has said publicly that she does not believe that the Canberra taxpayer ought to bear Mr De Domenico's costs. I agree with her statement on that. I think it was the Chronicle that had the Chief Minister's Christmas wish being that I would agree with her on just about anything. Well, she has got her Christmas wish; I agree with her on that. I do not believe that the Canberra taxpayer ought to be paying the considerable costs incurred by Mr De Domenico in the Human Rights Office matter. Mr Speaker, I do agree that it is appropriate that we have guidelines, but I would submit that those guidelines have existed, perhaps in unwritten form, for many years and in every other parliament. I believe that Mr De Domenico's request for assistance fell well wide of those guidelines and ought not to be considered, either now or in the future.

I realise that the question of Mr De Domenico's costs has caused some level of embarrassment to members of the Government because there is clearly a division of views within their ranks on whether or not the fees should be paid out of the public purse. We have had the Chief Minister's assurance throughout the whole hearing of that matter - right at the start, throughout it, and after it - that it would not be a charge on the public purse. I do not want the Government to use this committee reference as some sort of backdoor way of getting Mr De Domenico's costs paid. The decision, as Mr Humphries has said, was one for the Government. In my view, they took the right decision; they would not pay. I do not want this committee to be manipulated or used, or even to have the appearance of being some sort of a court of appeal for Mr De Domenico in the matter of his costs. If it is used in that way, I can tell you now that we will oppose it strenuously, and I would expect the Government to do so as well.

Mr Speaker, I have moved to insert that word "future" by way of amendment to put the matter beyond doubt. I think that Mrs Carnell was absolutely right in saying that the taxpayer should not pay Mr De Domenico's costs. I expect the Government to abide by the assurances that they gave throughout the whole of that lengthy affair and not to use this quite worthy undertaking of the drawing up of guidelines as a backdoor way of getting Mr De Domenico's costs paid, because they should not be.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .