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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (28 June) . . Page.. 2126 ..

Mr

Humphries: Without any evidence.

MS

TUCKER: Mr Humphries says, "Without any evidence." As a member of this Assembly I can understand why he said that. I recall that a 1999 report of the Finance and Public Administration Committee on the implementation of service purchasing arrangements in the ACT stated:

The committee found among agencies a disturbing degree of mistrust regarding long term departmental intentions. Some agencies have reason to believe they have been singled out for adverse treatment.

It became evident early in the inquiry that there is considerable disquiet within the community services sector about the process of implementation of the Rogan/Johnston recommendations. The committee found a reluctance by some agencies to be open about their concerns out of a perceived fear that they might suffer retribution if they were frank in their opinions about service/purchasing arrangements and their administration.

I personally have also had those concerns communicated to me consistently over the last few years by individual agencies. So there is certainly, from the perspective of my work in this place, a reasonable likelihood that this is the case.

Mr Hargreaves has used the words "I suspect" in his report, so he is offering an opinion. Perhaps he could have been more careful with his words. I think he could have and I hope he has learnt something from this. But there is something else at stake here. When I was speaking on the issue of freedom of speech I quoted the following extract from House of Representatives Practice:

By the 9th article of the Bill of Rights 1688 it was declared:

That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place of Parliament.

And then it goes on to say, and I will not read the whole passage:

Members are absolutely privileged from suit or prosecution only in respect of anything they might say in the course of proceedings ...

Further on, the following point is made:

... it becomes the duty of each Member to refrain from any course of action prejudicial to the privilege which he enjoys.

This is absolute privilege. This section highlights the point that people have to take responsibility when they make statements under this protection, whether it be in respect of authorisation or whatever.

I understand that Mr Humphries, Mr Osborne and others are sensitive about what Mr Hargreaves said. I noticed yesterday that in one section of his dissenting estimates report, Mr Hird accused the committee of being hypocritical and in another he accused them of fraud in respect of information. He says:

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