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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 4559 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

as a proceeding of public concern under the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002, sections 128 and 129. This definition will then provide protection from civil law action such as defamation.

This report and the amendments today still leave open the question of whether there is an expectation that the Assembly will be informed of a report from a board of inquiry. There is nothing in the legislation for a board of inquiry or a royal commission-serious formal public inquiries into a matter of import and at great expense-that requires the Chief Minister to publicise the report or to put it before the Assembly. While it will be argued that no government worth its salt would try to get away with hiding the report once such an inquiry has been conducted, I think we know that not all governments have been or will be worth their salt. There seems something very wrong with an arrangement that does not ensure some accountability.

The report on privilege notes that boards of inquiry are not in all jurisdictions creatures of the executive alone. In Tasmania, New South Wales and the Northern Territory there is a statutory requirement that a report from the equivalent inquiries-royal commission in New South Wales-be tabled in the house or houses. The time limit is 10 days in Tasmania and 14 days in the Northern Territory. Because the reports must be tabled they automatically are considered to be proceedings of parliament and so receive parliamentary privilege. I think there is something worth considering in that idea.

We saw, with the need for what became the Gallop inquiry, that the government of the day was somewhat reluctant to establish such a powerful inquiry into problems on its watch. While the government did the right thing and established the inquiry as called for by a majority of Assembly members, it is fair, I think, to say that it did not do all it could to ensure it would run smoothly-for example, selecting a chair with no experience in the area to be inquired into.

Ms Dundas has said that this legislation is irresponsible and an abrogation of responsibility because she believes that it should be the right of the Legislative Assembly to initiate such inquiries. It is an interesting debate and we had it at length when we were looking at setting up the Gallop inquiry. Of course, the debate crosses over into the whole basic questions about the role of the executive in a parliament and the capacity for a parliament to keep an executive accountable. The flip side of the argument that Ms Dundas is putting of course is that it is actually the wearing down of this separation that in fact diminishes accountability, and that was certainly the argument that was put by the clerks at the time.

So I think it is an interesting debate. It is really about looking at parliamentary practice and the role of executive in parliament. I understand where Ms Dundas is coming from in her statements but I think it is not a debate to be had today, although I am quite happy to have it another day because it is certainly important.

I have proposed amendments which are a slight adjustment to the proposed new arrangements for privilege that would require the Chief Minister if she or he did not put a report before the Assembly or otherwise make it public within a certain time to provide a written statement to the Assembly setting out the reasons for this. I have proposed one month, which allows enough time for consideration to be given to whatever issues might

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