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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 12 Hansard (14 November) . . Page.. 3607 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

In arguments put it will no doubt be said that this matter is not serious because no great damage resulted to Mr Wood. But seriousness is not simply a matter of actual harm. Breaching a principle or practice vital to the functioning of this place is serious, irrespective of the outcome. Mr Smyth, in his dissenting report, stresses:

Section 4 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act seems to suggest that before anyone can be said to have committed a contempt, a person needs to have done something positive that subsequently has the effect of interfering (or may interfere) with the free performance of his or her duties as a member.

However, Erskine May, the guide to British parliamentary practice, describes contempt as "any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House". The argument from Mr Smyth that Mr Strokowsky is relieved of an ethical obligation to act because it was not he who caused Mr Wood's emails to be diverted to him is an ethical position he can defend himself. This point is not relevant anyway, because our finding of contempt is based on the positive actions of Mr Strokowsky. He retained, used and distributed Mr Wood's emails, knowing that he was not the intended recipient of those emails.

Mr Smyth also states that he feels there is an element of retrospectivity in the committee's finding against Mr Strokowsky because we are imposing a new standard. He is apparently claiming it is not an accepted standard now that if a person receives someone else's emails over a period of time they have a responsibility to correct the situation and not to continue receiving, copying and distributing copies. The majority of the committee do not agree with Mr Smyth on this. In fact, Mr Strokowsky himself stated in evidence, as did other Liberal staff, that it is not appropriate to read, retain and use other people's emails unless you are authorised to do so. It was another Liberal staff member who first alerted the appropriate people to the issue because they were so offended by the behaviour. I think it was an accepted standard.

During the inquiry the committee was accused of considering matters irrelevant to its terms of reference. I ask members to read the report. We were very careful to restrict our inquiries and our comments to matters bearing directly on the issues of privilege and contempt.

It will also be put that we are setting an unreasonable standard that does not reflect the community's view of the privacy of people's emails. That is the standard we have applied. That is the standard every member of this place would apply. If Mr Strokowsky had applied it, we would not be debating this matter today.

It has also been said that we have accepted hearsay and gossip. Again, I ask members to read the report. In writing this report, the committee relied overwhelmingly on the police statements given by Mr Strokowsky and others and public evidence corroborated by other evidence. In my opinion, it would have been possible for the committee to reach its conclusion based almost entirely on Mr Strokowsky's police statement, his evidence to the committee and hard copies of the emails involved.

Finally, this is an important matter. Mr Smyth, in his dissenting report, stresses the need for us to be circumspect and restrained in finding contempt. I can assure members I applied that principle in my deliberations on this matter. I have heard the argument that

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