Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 6 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 2153 ..
MR STEFANIAK (continuing):
I think that is a very important paragraph, paragraph 39 of their particular advice. They go on to say finally:
Another option for protection of the report would have been for it to have been established pursuant to specific legislation that spelled out all the functions and powers of the Inquiry, together with detain of issues such as the protection of witnesses. Yet another option would have been for the inquiry to have been established under section 5 of the Inquiries Act 1991. As the time for exercising either of these options has passed, however, we offer no further comment.
That may well be so, but again I think this exercise we're engaged in now brings home the importance of what we were saying back in February or March: really it would have been far preferable if this inquiry, the McLeod inquiry, actually had been set up under the Inquiries Act, because these little problems we're having in trying to sort through these issues simply would not have occurred had it been done under that act. That obviously would have been a far more preferable way to go.
It wasn't, and so now we are just doing these things to ensure that people are protected, the correct protections are offered and things like privilege are actually taken into account.
The relevant New South Wales section-and the advice contains a number of these references-is section 78 of the Rail Safety Act 2002. It would seem to me that the amendments which Ms Tucker proposes are very much in line with that particular section. I'm very thankful for the discussions I've had with all members, with Mr Gosling, with Ms Tucker and with Roland from her office. I'm grateful for not only the Clayton Utz advice but the advice provided by the Government Solicitor and the discussions with and the assistance from the acting clerk as well.
It would seem that the government has acknowledged concerns about parliamentary privilege versus legal privilege; it's introduced its amendments. There are still some potential issues there. On balance-certainly taking the advice I've had-Ms Tucker's amendments are preferable. Obviously we'll be supporting the bill in principle, but I think her amendments are probably tidier.
They do provide protection from civil action directly to McLeod, the Chief Minister or anyone else acting under their directions in preparing or making public the report. No person is liable, it would seem, if they publish the report or a fair summary of it. It applies only in that respect; it is not dependent on the Assembly, the Speaker or anyone else taking or not taking any actions; and it seems to be a pretty faithful reproduction of the New South Wales provision. They would seem reasonable amendments to make.
So we will be supporting the bill in principle and, on the basis of the advice I've had, plus looking at it, we'd be happy to support Ms Tucker's amendments in relation to that particular issue in the bill.
MS DUNDAS
(4.21): Mr Speaker, the ACT Democrats will be opposing this bill. After the introduction of Mr Stefaniak's bill in March, I offered the support of the Democrats as that bill provided the protection of privilege to all evidence given to the inquiry and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .