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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 6 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 2158 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

I'm happy at any result that allows the government to deliver the report to the people of Canberra immediately it's received. If this is the model that makes people happy, so be it.

I don't want to delay people. What this whole debate in relation to the McLeod report and its publication reveals to me is the uncertainties in the minds of many around parliamentary privilege-what it means, when it exists, how it's excited, when it should be utilised, and indeed what its purpose is.

I do regret that I was absent after question time on the day the original bill was debated. I would have very much liked to have contributed to that debate to clear up some of the misunderstandings that I believe were expressed in the debate on that day. Perhaps we would have avoided this ongoing issue which has occupied so much thinking and time over the last six weeks or so-much of it I think fruitless and quite unproductive-going to issues around parliamentary privilege and when it is excited.

There are some fundamental questions in relation to this, which I too pose. I'll conclude my comments on this because I'm a bit keen to go home. I just make this point in the context of this angst and anxiety we're feeling about the McLeod report; whether or not it should attract parliamentary privilege; if not, why not; and simply in relation to the submissions that were tabled: yesterday the Speaker tabled an Auditor-General's report. Today the Speaker tabled an Auditor-General's report. The minute he tabled them, it was moved that the reports be published. The Assembly agreed without thought or demur.

On Tuesday we published Auditor-General's reports No 5 and No 6; today we published Auditor-General's report No 7. What did we do by agreeing to publish them? We granted them parliamentary privilege.

And what did Auditor-General's report No 5 contain? It contained an inquiry into FAI House, which I can't discuss or debate, but it suggests some fairly dodgy business in relation to the computing of the rent, et cetera. But we won't debate that because we can't.

Report No 6 was into some shenanigans at the University of Canberra Union, with a recommendation from the auditor that the matters at the University of Canberra Union be referred to the Australian Federal Police.

Some of the concerns I've seen expressed are: "Heck, if you grant a document parliamentary privilege, that's it; you can't then pursue these matters in other forums. Matters can't be pursued through courts."Yesterday, we gave parliamentary privilege to a report of the Auditor-General which recommended just that. Is anybody now going to stand up and say, "Heck, what have we done? Have we now truncated an Australian Federal Police inquiry into the University of Canberra Union? Have we now prevented the possibility of prosecutions emanating from that police inquiry? Shock, horror, what have we done?"Well, let me tell you and reassure you: we've done no such thing. We've given parliamentary privilege to some Auditor-General's reports which actually suggested there needed to be police investigations and all this, and we haven't done any harm or any damage.

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