Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 2 Hansard (5 March) . . Page.. 505 ..
MR SMYTH (continuing):
Subsection (1) (a) applies to the following types of conduct:
(a) conduct of a person (whether or not a public official) that adversely affects, or could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of official functions by a public official or government agency; or
(b) conduct of a public official that amounts to the exercise of any of his or her official functions dishonestly or with partiality; or
(c) conduct of a public official, a former public official or a government agency that amounts to a breach of public trust; or
(d) conduct of a public official, a former public official or a government agency that amounts to the misuse of information or material acquired in the course of the exercise of official functions (whether for the benefit of that person or agency, or otherwise); or
(e) a conspiracy or attempt to engage in conduct referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d).
Subsection (3) reads:
In this section:
criminal offence means an offence against a law in force in the ACT.
disciplinary offence means conduct that constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under a law in force in the ACT.
I am not sure why the Chief Minister believes that sensitive or confidential information would amount to disclosable conduct. I doubt very much that during the emergency a public officer attempted insider trading. I do not think any public officials were bribed or acted partially and I do not think that any public officials had a hand in the till. I would say that the disclosable conduct provisions are completely unsuited to the matter at hand.
I think that it was remarkable that the Chief Minister accused me of extreme ignorance of the nature of the whistleblower legislation when it is clear that he does not have the foggiest. Perhaps he got caught up in section 35, which notes:
... in proceedings for defamation there is a defence of qualified privilege in respect of the making of a public interest disclosure.
However, since a public interest disclosure is reliant upon disclosable conduct, section 35 obviously cannot apply in this case. I would also point out that at the moment the McLeod inquiry is not a proper authority under the act. Therefore, the head of the Chief Minister's Department would not legally be able to pass any public interest disclosures to it.
Since the Chief Minister is seemingly completely ignorant of the PID Act, I refer him to section 3A, which allows the minister to declare a particular body as a territory
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .