Page 1751 - Week 05 - Thursday, 2 April 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (10.27): The Canberra Liberals will be supporting the Speaker’s amendment. This is an important tweaking. In the existing case, which was the first time that we have used the standing order, we were left in the situation where there is no clear time line. Without a time line it leaves people open to the criticism that they are dragging their feet on an issue. This is an important improvement which will ensure that, when we have recourse to using this standing order, it will be dealt with expeditiously.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (10.27): The government will also be supporting this amendment. It is important to note that the time taken to deal with the first exercise of a call for a document under this new standing order was due to the fact that essentially what was occurring with the first exercise of the provisions of this standing order was the establishment of a precedent that will guide future decision making around calls for such documents under this standing order. The government wanted to make sure that it had a clear and detailed position based on some informed legal advice to allow it to make the claim of privilege that it has, which is now subject to arbitration by the independent arbiter.
That is the reason why the government took a longer period of time than would otherwise have been anticipated to respond to the call for the document. But it was necessary, to make sure that an informed position was put to the arbiter by the government on claims for privilege and that the position was robustly put, in a way that would serve for future claims may they be required. That is the reason for the delay. The government has always been happy to submit to this process, provided that the claim is able to be made in an informed way.
I should, however, foreshadow that, whilst the government is supportive of this amendment, we do believe that there may be a need for further amendment to this standing order. I would like to foreshadow to members that the government will be giving contemplation to moving, potentially at the next sitting, a further amendment to this standing order—an amendment to provide that, where a member objects to a claim of privilege, they are required to give reasons for that objection.
At the moment, the government is required to give reasons for a claim of privilege, but where a member objects to that claim and effectively triggers the referral to an independent arbiter, the member is not required to give any reasons for the objection. We think that the reasons for the member’s objection should equally be provided to the independent arbiter so that the arbiter can look at the issues in question in terms of the claim and also look at the issues that the member objecting has for their objection. At the moment there is no requirement for reasons to be given by the member objecting, and we think that potentially there should be. But that is a matter for another day and potentially another debate. The government will be supporting the amendment.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (10.30), in reply: I thank members for their support. I should have said this in my earlier comments but in response to Mr Corbell I would
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .