Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 2 Hansard (20 May) . . Page.. 369 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

The report was blocked by you, Mr Speaker, because some of the material in it was considered potentially libellous. I was advised at the time that because we did not have a privileges Bill the report to the Assembly did not receive the protection of privilege.

I started working on the Bill with the Clerk immediately and issued drafting instructions in mid-January 1997. A couple of weeks later the Government also issued similar instructions. As is the nature of such things, the Government's request was, rightly - or perhaps not rightly - processed before mine. I did not care, Mr Speaker, who brought this Bill on, as long as we had one; but the Government's Bill lapsed with the last Assembly. I have spoken with the Government, and it was not listed on their legislative program. I have decided to bring it on in private members business, as I believe it is high time this place had such a Bill.

In its effect, this Bill is substantially similar to that presented by the Chief Minister last year, with a few minor but important amendments. The impetus for the Government Bill came from disturbances in and around the Assembly in 1996, and the obvious need to define the precincts of the building and clarify the role of the Speaker.

"Parliamentary privilege" is a term that describes the powers, privileges and immunities of a parliament. These privileges ensure the proper operation of a parliament. In some ways parliamentary privilege places the parliament above the general law, but we should not forget that the focus is the public interest. It is in the public interest that Assembly members should be able to speak their minds. It is also in the public interest that Assembly proceedings should be free of outside interference or obstruction.

This is not intended as stand-alone legislation. This Bill sits within a wider framework of law dealing with parliamentary privilege. Section 24 of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act applies the privileges of the House of Representatives to this Assembly. We also have our own ACT laws, such as the broadcasting legislation passed in 1997. The Bill acknowledges the wider context. It clearly states that this law still applies, unless the Bill provides otherwise.

The self-government Act limits the power of the Assembly to punish a person for contempt of the parliament. It provides that, unlike other parliaments, the Assembly cannot fine or imprison a person. The courts are the appropriate place for that kind of action. Therefore, the Bill provides that certain contempts can be punished by a court as an additional enforcement mechanism. The Assembly will retain its current power to punish contempts.

The laws that ensure absolute privilege of parliamentary proceedings will still apply. They will be subject to two necessary exceptions. One is, of course, that courts may need to refer to documents such as the Hansard to interpret ACT laws. The second exception relates to the fact that courts will administer the offences created by the Bill. The offences are structured to reduce the need for detailed examination of proceedings. The use of certificate evidence will reduce the need for a court to examine Assembly proceedings to decide whether an offence was committed. This strikes a balance between the importance of the immunity of the parliament and the need for courts to administer the statutory offences.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .