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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 5 Hansard (8 May) . . Page.. 1795 ..

MS DUNDAS (continuing):

are from the government to the McLeod inquiry in relation to the bushfire disaster of January 18.

We have already had a lot of debate in this chamber about how this inquiry should progress. The Chief Minister himself had tabled today legislation relating to this inquiry, indicating that we have not fully resolved those debates. To work outside of that process and have some of these documents allowed for publication and given absolute privilege and not others is, I think, unwise.

I also believe that the government is not outside the law and the ramifications of what happened on January 18 have not yet been fully explored. That is why we are having all these inquiries. Again, to sidestep those inquiry processes and in a piecemeal fashion authorise privilege for some of these documents before that inquiry has finished is also of concern. We do not know what McLeod is going to say and we do not know what the coroner is going to say. Perhaps we need that information before we say that the government is privileged in the actions that it took in relation to those bushfires.

I agree that we need more time to consider this matter. I agree that we need more information. I do hope that the Assembly realises that and will not agree to these documents being authorised for publication at this stage.

MR SMYTH (Leader of the Opposition) (9.05): Mr Speaker, the opposition will not be supporting the motion. We will not be supporting the motion on four points. Most of them have been covered by previous speakers. First and foremost, there is the issue of fairness. It would not be fair if some documents given to the inquiry were to attract absolute privilege while other documents given to the inquiry by ordinary Canberrans were not to attract privilege.

The second issue is precedent. I have checked through the Clerk one index of the minutes of proceedings of this place and there does not seem to be in that volume an example of an occurrence of this kind. The Clerk's memory is that possibly we have authorised some documents previously in this way. I think that it would be a very serious matter if we were to set a precedent whereby the government can waltz in, drop a document on the table, and then move for it to be authorised for publication without members of the Assembly being aware of what they are actually signing up for, and we would all be signing up for it because we are the ones who ultimately would be authorising it.

The third area is to do with process. Oddly enough, if the government is afraid of some sort of legal action from the press which already have copies of these documents or legal action resulting from the fact that the press have these documents and find some sort of conflict that they weave into a story, those documents will not have privilege anyway because they were released before they were put through this place.

My understanding is that privilege is not retrospective and that you cannot gain privilege by coming into this place after the fact, after you have made something public, after you have broadcast it, and the Chief Minister this morning has broadcast these documents to a select group-indeed, under embargo to, I understand, 4 o'clock this afternoon, but he has made them public and he must wear that.

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