Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 2 Hansard (5 March) . . Page.. 497 ..
MR STEFANIAK (continuing):
Under subclause (2) of clause 4, a statement is made and a document or information is given if it is made or given to Mr McLeod as head of the inquiry or to anyone assisting Mr McLeod for the purposes of the inquiry, that is, any person assisting Mr McLeod, anyone associated with him in terms of the inquiry, who receives that information of whatever kind from the person.
Under subclause (b), it does not matter whether the person gives that information because they have been asked to or they come forward of their own initiative. I think that many people will wish to come forward of their own initiative. They would all be protected in whatever capacity they are given to. Subclause (3) is simply a definition of "inquiry"; it is self-explanatory. Clause 5 deals with when the act would expire. Parliamentary counsel have indicated that the act would expire on 30 September, noting that Mr McLeod is due to report by 30 June.
As is often the case, these things do go longer than initially anticipated. If the inquiry is to go further, there is a provision in subclause 5(2) that the minister may in writing before 30 September this year determine a later date for the expiry of this act. That determination would be a disallowable instrument. That is quite normal. If the inquiry did go a bit longer, the relevant minister could simply extend the operation of the act. The whole purpose of this bill is to cover witnesses and anyone giving any information from go to whoa, to the time the inquiry is finally complete. That is the basis of this bill, which I hope will have the support of members.
The bill has gained support elsewhere. Several days ago, I received a letter from Mr Michael Bartlett, the solicitor acting for the United Firefighters Union of Australia, ACT branch, who said to me:
I have received instructions from the United Firefighters Union of Australia (ACT Branch) to provide legal advice and representation to that union and, if necessary, to union members in relation to the upcoming ACT Government Inquiry, conducted by Mr Ron McLeod, into aspects of the January 2003 bushfires.
I am instructed that one of the union's objectives in becoming involved in this inquiry is to ensure that a full and open inquiry is held and that any evidence provided to the inquiry is accurate and truthful. The union is keen to ensure that any recommendations and findings made by the inquiry, affecting union members, is based on truthful, accurate evidence.
My client is of the view that if the ACT Government wants to discover the truth about the January 2003 fires, on the basis of properly tested evidence, then the inquiry proceedings should not give rise to any participants being sued for defamation for what they say in the inquiry.
Please be advised that I am instructed to inform you that the United Firefighters Union of Australia (ACT Branch) supports your proposed bill to protect witnesses from defamation claims arising from evidence given to the McLeod inquiry.
Mr Bartlett goes further and requests me to consider expanding the ambit of this bill, stating:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .