Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (28 June) . . Page.. 2121 ..
MR HARGREAVES
(continuing):It was this advice on which the committee was being asked to make an important decision which led me to believe that something was afoot in relation to a reduction of funding for the Women's Legal Service. The minister did not want the report, with its dissenting report, to be available for public consumption because he was afraid that some of the truth contained in it would be revealed. He used the ruse of defamation, flimsy as it is, to ensure that the release did not happen at a time that inconvenienced him.
This Attorney-General, this first law officer, this master of the intricacies of litigation, would have known that he was on dubious ground. All he has actually done is draw attention to the fact that someone in this chamber has had the temerity to say in this chamber what many people out there in the community have been saying for five years. They are saying-they have said it to me-that the executive is not beyond bullying a non-government agency to suit their own ends.
For this minister to get all worked up about a statement of truth is a bit rich. I had not realised how thin-skinned and easily hurt he is. Well, I am sorry if I have hurt you, minister. But if you and your colleagues continue to have your officers or yourselves talk to drug recipients in words like, "Why do you bite the hand that feeds you?" when these organisations have the temerity to criticise the government, I will continue to expose you.
Mr
Humphries: Like the AIDS Action Council, perhaps?MR
HARGREAVES: Mr Speaker, let the record show the minister interjects and says, "The AIDS Action Council." Nowhere in my speech so far have I referred to that organisation. If the minister wants to identify an organisation that he has bullied then so be it.Mr Speaker, this document must be authorised for publication. It is the expression of a position reached firstly by a standing committee and secondly by a member who disagrees with the majority of the standing committee. (Further extension of time granted.) The non-authorisation, in my view, is a denial of parliamentary privilege to members. Further, it is a denial of protection for the committee office. The statements were made by me under privilege. The same protection should transfer to the committee office, who are the publishers, and to the Assembly who are also the publishers. Why there is not a general resolution to adopt the Commonwealth parliamentary process in this regard is a mystery to me. Perhaps the cynic would say it is convenient for some members who want to play around with the process.
I support the motion to authorise the publication of the report. It is the duty of this Assembly to be open and transparent about its deliberations unless there is good reason not to be. In this case there is insufficient reason to withhold it. The report is part of a draft budget process advanced by the government. If the government does not like what it hears or is slightly offended by the truth, well, bad luck.
Mr Speaker, I did not say that the Attorney-General perverted his duty, I did not allege corruption, and I did not refer to abortions. The Attorney did refer to all of these. I did, in fact, withdraw any implication of corruption. I did say in my report and in my speech
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .