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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 3 Hansard (12 March) . . Page.. 947 ..

MS DUNDAS (continuing):

them. In my view, it is better to avoid even the threat of unsuccessful litigation by using privilege, rather than creating a defence to an action that may be commenced by someone who believes they have been defamed.

I am not supportive of this amendment but, as Mr Stefaniak has already stated, I want protection for the witnesses who will be putting forward evidence to the McLeod inquiry. I understand that this amendment will be accepted by the Assembly today.

I know there have been ongoing discussions between the Attorney-General and Mr Stefaniak and that this is the outcome. However, I want to take this opportunity to put those concerns on the record-that we have not yet completely fixed the situation and that this is almost the third or fourth-best option we could have had for witnesses in the McLeod inquiry.

I hope we do not end up with the situation where people are being pursued with the threat of legal action-because they now can be. I hope that does not hamper people or prevent them putting information forward to the McLeod inquiry. This would mean that, through the information we get, the recommendations may not be as fully informed as they should be, as we attempt to thoroughly understand the disaster that has hit our city and move forward in the rebuilding process.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Community Affairs and Minister for the Environment) (3.53): I want to respond to the doubts cast by Ms Dundas on the legal advice of the Department of Justice and Community Safety. Each of the points made have been roundly addressed in detail, in the legal advice from the department of justice that was circulated by me.

My legal advisers tell me explicitly that there are a number of significant concerns about whether what the original bill sought to achieve would be achieved. The advice is that the deficiencies are such that the protection sought would probably not have been granted. I table the legal advice I circulated in relation to these matters, which responds to all the points made by Ms Dundas. I present the following paper:

MR STEFANIAK (3.54): I note with interest Ms Dundas's comments. Indeed, one of her staff members spoke to me at some length before lunch. Whilst I have spoken to the drafter of the legal advice and, to an extent, we agree to differ, I am not uncomfortable with what the Attorney has done. We agreed to that on Friday.

I make the point that this does protect someone who gives a statement, or evidence, to the inquiry. It ensures that they are protected for what they give. It protects the report by Mr McLeod too. Obviously, it does not protect someone going and slagging off to a third person. But, then again, the protection you get in a court would not necessarily do that either, unless you were accurately reporting what occurred, or what was said, in an open court. This still gives that protection to a defendant.

I want to make it clear that people who give evidence to the inquiry-people who give a statement to the inquiry-have nothing to fear in respect of defamation, as a result of

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