Page 1402 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 11 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
at the moment, outside public sector legislation. I refer in particular to the Crimes (Offences Against the Government) Act. That is not, as I understand it, being incorporated into the Chief Minister's Bill, so you are not going to have a one-stop shop anyway.
Putting that to one side, the Bill Mrs Carnell has put forward does not apply just to public servants. It applies to anybody, as Mr Kaine pointed out. Any person is covered by this, and that is very important, because there are circumstances where a person who is not a public servant, or an ex-public servant - - -
Mr De Domenico: Board members.
MR HUMPHRIES: As Mr De Domenico points out, board members of statutory authorities, even ordinary individuals who come across information, might, under certain circumstances, be liable for prosecution if they were to disclose that information. That is why it is essential that this be stand-alone legislation. It is not just about public servants; it is about anybody in this community who believes that the public interest in certain circumstances is protected by disclosing certain information.
The two packages before us today are very different and they deserve to be gone through with some care. I welcome the motion Mr Lamont will move to refer them to that committee, already established, which will be looking at this question. I believe that it is only appropriate that we acknowledge that Mrs Carnell has put this issue on the agenda. She deserves credit for that fact, and we ought to accept that the motivation behind her Bill has a great deal more to recommend it than the motivation behind the Chief Minister's Bill.
MR DE DOMENICO (12.12): Madam Speaker, I will not take too much of the Assembly's time. As usual, the technical aspects of the legislation have been most aptly handled by Mr Kaine, followed by Mr Humphries. I listened very intently to the debate, and there were some comments made by Ms Follett and others that need clarifying. Once again, I think it is all about politics. I think Mr Moore hit the nail on the head when he said that he was shown a copy of Mrs Carnell's initial Bill a year ago, and that is what we are talking about today. If it were not for the Liberal Party and Mrs Carnell's Bill, we would not be here debating the issue.
Ms Follett: Why did you not show it to me?
MR DE DOMENICO: Let me answer that question, Ms Follett. When Mrs Carnell went public and suggested that she was getting together a Public Interest Disclosure Bill, what did Mr Connolly say publicly? He said, "We do not need one. The Labor Party would not support this sort of thing because we do not need one". That is the answer to Ms Follett's question. We did not talk to you, Ms Follett, because a senior Minister in your Cabinet said that, as far as the Government was concerned, they were not interested. He was not speaking personally, although from time to time Mr Connolly does tend to disagree with other members of caucus. That is why we did not show the Government a copy of the Bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .