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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 7 Hansard (6 June) . . Page.. 2050 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Having indicated that we have respect for the process used in such circumstances, we cannot help observing that this is a matter intended to go to the conduct of a particular member of the staff of the Liberal Party.

There is no way that this inquiry will not be, in effect, a trial of this person. Yet, this same person received, today, an indication from the Director of Public Prosecutions that his conduct attracts no criminal onus, and that no criminal offence is disclosed by the evidence relating to that matter.

After being under something of a cloud for nearly four months, this individual would have been entitled to, today, be feeling a sense of relief and feeling some entitlement to be able to get back to life as usual, to the extent that this is possible after what took place. However, that clearly is not going to be the case if an inquiry of this kind is to be moved. This matter will run on for several more weeks, at least. The result will be that this person's position will be under a continuing cloud, even if, up until today, that person's name has not been mentioned in the media. But that is no longer the case, as I mentioned earlier today.

Mr Speaker, I think that this is nothing more nor less than a witch-hunt. It is designed to pursue a Liberal Party staff member in circumstances reminiscent of a number of earlier incidents in this place. It is unreasonable to view the circumstances of this matter-circumstances which I have outlined in a media release that I issued today-as a matter which appropriately goes to a question of privilege.

I said earlier today that the staff member concerned may not have been wise to have done what he did. There can be debate about the ethics of what he did, but I think that debate is conducted by politicians and journalists with somewhat less clean hands than might be the case in the broader community. Politicians and journalists constantly receive material not intended for them and material that, it might quite reasonably be argued, is not ethically to be handled or used by them, but they do do so.

I do not think this debate should be extended in this way. I think the staff member concerned should have that onus lifted from them. I believe it is difficult to see how the matters complained of-the matters which constitute the conduct in question-could amount to a breach of privilege of the Assembly.

If a person were to be involved in preventing a member of this place from receiving information sent to him or her, that might well constitute a matter of a breach of the privilege of that member, but I do not believe there is any evidence whatsoever that that has occurred in this case.

I do not wish to speak at length about the circumstances of this matter because these are matters that will now come before a committee of the Assembly. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate that the path chosen to consider this matter was to refer it to the Australian Federal Police, with the expectation that it would be dealt with as a matter of potential criminal conduct.

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