Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (28 June) . . Page.. 2117 ..
MR HUMPHRIES
(continuing):The other point here concerns natural justice. Mr Hargreaves has made these assertions in his dissenting report. I appeared as a witness before the Justice and Community Safety Committee in the course of its inquiry and these comments were never put to me. It would seem to me to be entirely appropriate that if Mr Hargreaves wanted to make these very serious assertions about my behaviour as Attorney-General of the Australian Capital Territory, he might have put those assertions to me so I would have a chance to rebut them. I had no such opportunity. As a result, the comments appeared without my having a chance beforehand to put my point of view about them. For that reason alone I think we have got to view these comments with considerable caution.
In any case, it is very important to consider that the publication of comments without qualification provides members with a major opportunity to use what has been described as the coward's castle of parliament to make comments under privilege-comments which they could not make outside the chamber under privilege and which they could not make inside the chamber without having to withdraw them.
Mr Speaker, I think the amendment I have moved reflects an appropriate response to the situation. It clearly notes that the comments of Mr Hargreaves would constitute a breach of the standing orders if made on the floor of the Assembly. The fact is that the comments ought not be construed differently whether they are made of the floor of the Assembly or whether they are made in a committee report. In both circumstances, the making of the comments attracts privilege, and unfettered privilege in these circumstances would be most unfortunate and most unfair.
Mr Speaker, I think the motion needs to be suitably qualified and I commend my amendment to the Assembly.
MR
HARGREAVES (11:36): I am pleased to see that the government is going to support the body of the motion. I believe the most significant part about it is the extension of privilege to the committee and the staff of the committee, who obviously have to deal with the publication of the report. What the minister thinks of me is, in a sense, immaterial.I would like to address a couple of things within the context of what the minister has said about my comments. Since I am the subject of the amendment, I would seek the indulgence of members on the question of time.
You may remember, Mr Speaker, that when we previously had this debate in the chamber I did in fact withdraw any suggestion of corruption. I want to make that point up-front at this stage and I will come back to it later. I understand that it is a difficult process to withdraw things from a written report. I also understand that we have a processing problem concerning an issued report that contains something which is regretted later. Perhaps the Administration and Procedure Committee can address that in the fullness of time. I do not regret the sentiments behind what I have said but I pose the question about procedure.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .