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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 12 Hansard (14 November) . . Page.. 3606 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Mr Speaker, the Privileges Committee considered the commentary on privilege and contempt and precedence from the Commonwealth parliament. The committee unanimously adopted four criteria against which the actions complained of were to be judged: improper interference in a member's ability to discharge his duties as a member, serious interference, intent on the part of the person responsible, and action directly related to the member's duties as a member.

In determining whether contempt had occurred, the committee considered two separate issues in this inquiry. The first event was the original diversion of Minister Bill Wood's emails to Michael Strokowsky, an employee of the Liberal opposition. This diversion occurred at system management level in InTACT. The second issue was the continuing unauthorised retention and use of these emails by Mr Strokowsky.

On the matter of the diversion within InTACT, the committee concluded that it could not identify contempt. This is because, even though the diversion itself was improper, serious and did interfere with the free performance of the member's duties, no person was identified as responsible for this diversion, and therefore it was not possible to establish intent.

However, the committee has recommended that the role of InTACT as the Legislative Assembly's IT service provider be reviewed by the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure. It was of great concern to the committee that system logs maintained by InTACT at the time of the diversion did not enable identification of the person responsible. InTACT has assured the committee that since then rights of access have been significantly restricted and security vetting of staff has been considerably improved, but it is important that the Assembly, through the Administration and Procedure Committee, be able to fully inquire into the adequacy of security of information technology services.

On the second issue, the continuing unauthorised retention and use of the diverted emails by Mr Strokowsky, a majority of the committee members concluded that the actions of Mr Strokowsky did meet the criteria for contempt. They were an improper interference of the free performance of Minister Wood's duties. They were a deliberate breach of the privacy of Mr Wood's free communication with the electorate, his officials and his colleagues.

On the second criterion, there was a serious interference. The committee believes that the principle that persons wishing to communicate with a member of this place in confidence, secure in the knowledge that their correspondence will not be "eavesdropped", is an important principle, and a breach of it is a serious matter. This place also requires all of us to be able to place trust in the ethical behaviour of our colleagues and staff. A betrayal of that trust is also serious.

The criterion of intent is also clearly established. Mr Strokowsky retained, copied and passed on to his colleagues copies of Mr Wood's emails. His intent to make use of the emails for political purposes is quite clear. His understanding that he should not be receiving the emails is also clear.

The criterion of the interference being to the member's duties as a member is also established. All the emails relate to Mr Wood's duties as a member or a minister.

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