Page 2589 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 25 September 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
profession last year. Possibly people remember, possibly they do not, but it is there in the transcript that I suggested that Mr Hockey and many other AWB executives should be wondering whether they would spend time in jail for being part of the scam that provided over $300 million in assistance to a very nasty dictator and a declared enemy of Australia.
I have since been told by Mr Hockey that the report in the Canberra Times of 15 May last year, which provided the information for that remark, was incorrect. Mr Hockey tells me—and I accept it—that he did not come up with the scheme to abuse legal process by initiating a SLAPP suit against one of AWB’s detractors. Rather, when Mr Hockey said, “The idea is to start some pressure on him, let him know the legals are working on him—make him start blowing his meagre budget,” he was merely describing to a colleague what he understood to be the intentions of AWB’s management.
The Cole inquiry cleared Mr Hockey of wrongdoing and also found—and I accept it—that Mr Hockey had no knowledge of the wheat for weapons scam at the time that he was General Manager of Public Affairs for the AWB. Mr Hockey, of course, has worked for Liberal Party and National Party MPs and he has served on the Iraqi Provisional Authority and also, therefore, had been involved, I guess, in areas which might have been the basis for that Canberra Times article. But I accept his explanation and I apologise to Mr Hockey.
Mr Mulcahy: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: if the member has reflected on somebody and wishes to make an apology, there is a procedure for that. I do not think it is part of the debate on the Legal Profession Amendment Bill.
MR SPEAKER: That is a debating point. You can contribute to the debate if you wish.
Mr Mulcahy: Sorry?
MR SPEAKER: It is a debating point, I think. If you wish to contribute to the debate, the opportunity will be there.
Mr Mulcahy: But, Mr Speaker, it has got nothing to do with the legislation. It is to do with her talking about reflecting on someone last year in the Canberra Times. It is nothing to do with the Legal Profession Amendment Bill at all.
MR SPEAKER: Remain relevant, Dr Foskey.
DR FOSKEY: Thank you. I am not sure whether Mr Mulcahy heard me say that I am reflecting on comments that I made in my speech on the original bill last year. I will just conclude that section of my speech. I felt this was an appropriate place to clear the record, and that is what I have done.
I welcome the costs disclosure provisions in this bill, and I think the experienced client exceptions are a sensible compromise to minimise unnecessary accounting and disclosure costs. I have reservations about so-called uplift fees provisions in this bill, as I would not like to see the American practice introduced into Australia whereby
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .