Page 3785 - Week 10 - Thursday, 27 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
of contempt. And when the committee found that no contempt had been found, I dissented. You only need to look at the federal act, section 4, essential elements of offences, from where we draw our privilege:
Conduct (including the use of words) does not constitute an offence against a House unless it amounts, or is intended to or likely to amount, to an improper interference with the free exercise … by a member …
The problem here is that there was an intention in the writing of that letter, contained explicitly in the last two paragraphs, directing Mr Hanson to undertake certain actions, to impede what he was attempting to do in his role as a member of this place. And that is a contempt. Whether it was successful or not is not the issue. It was intended to divert him from his chosen course. And that is a contempt and that is what should have been found. That it was not, I think, is very sad because it now sets a precedent that we may regret.
Mr Hanson said that he believed that it was a legal letter, it was a forerunner, for instance, to defamation. I think you only have to look at Mr Cormack’s submission, paragraph 14, where he actually talks about seeking a remedy. This is a legal document, this document that has been sent, this submission from Mr Cormack. In paragraph 14 Mr Cormack offers an opinion on how the concerns could be remedied and invites Mr Hanson to respond.
I think the first thing that happens when you get to court, if you are taking a defamation action, is the judge says, “Did you seek a remedy? Did you seek a withdrawal and a retraction?” “Yes, I did.” And that is what this is—have no doubt about it—the letter that was sent to Mr Hanson was a legal document seeking a remedy. The problem is that that is a prelude to defamation. I will get to this at the end of my speech.
The problem for members of the opposition and, indeed, of the crossbenches is that we do not have the resources that the government has through the use of the Government Solicitor’s Office and we do not have the resources that public servants have in their protections that they are provided in their job and their access to legal advice.
It is interesting that, when Mr Hanson says it is a cover-up, he is attacking the department. But if we go back a little while to the views of the Labor Party, it was actually okay to call former ministers corrupt. Mr Stanhope, as Leader of the Opposition, on 14 March 2001, accused the former government of corruption. He said:
Labor rejects the corruption, for instance, of the Freedom of Information process—
oddly enough, freedom of information yet again—
that has characterised the years of the Carnell/Humphries governments … a corruption of process that saw my legitimate request for information about the Bruce Stadium redevelopment denied all the way to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .