Page 3763 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 19 September 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
system. This is one of the most important and challenging issues facing the ACT government and simply saying, “I do not know,” to a series of questions is not an adequate answer.
Let me recap. Yesterday, when the minister was given an opportunity to demonstrate why we do not need a board of inquiry the minister failed. My colleague Mr Wall pointed out that the Inquiries Act 1991 had strict rules around the misuse and disclosure of information obtained as part of an inquiry and that breaching these rules incurs serious penalties including jail sentences.
According to the Canberra Times, which I would concur with, Ms Fitzharris in her response was tight-lipped. And that is true. We did not get a substantive answer. Question time got worse, to the point of being farcical. When my colleague Mrs Dunne asked how witnesses providing any sensitive information would be protected if there were no rules against misuse and disclosure, the minister simply said:
I refer Mrs Dunne to my previous answer.
Mrs Dunne: Which was a non-answer.
MR HANSON: Which was not actually an answer. I then asked whether a proposed inquiry would have the power to compel witnesses and the minister said:
I refer to my previous answers.
If those previous answers had actually given us an answer then that would suffice. But you cannot fail to answer a question and then just respond by saying:
I refer to my previous answers.
There were questions put forward about protections for witnesses, the misuse of information, inappropriate disclosure and the powers to compel witnesses and whether they should be under oath. Again, the minister had no answer.
It got worse. We noted that under the Inquiries Act the proceedings of a board of inquiry are taken to be proceedings of public concern under the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002. We asked what protection for public reporting will be guaranteed under the proposed inquiry. Again the response was:
I refer to my previous answers.
We asked a series of questions about what protections would be provided as immunity and whether board members of the proposed inquiry or review will receive the same protection and immunity as that provided under the Inquiries Act. Again the response was:
I refer to my previous answers.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video