Page 3713 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 18 October 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
goodwill demonstrated by the other state and territory leaders, who have managed to make a constructive contribution in the development of the anti-terrorism legislation.
Not only was this a breach of faith but also I think it also shows the poor judgment of our Chief Minister. He displayed poor judgment in the Tonkin affair when he created a department to shunt somebody aside because he could not deal with them. There was poor judgment displayed by the Chief Minister in joining the bushfire inquest appeal against Coroner Doogan, who he said had apprehended bias, or the appearance thereof. There was the poor judgment of the Chief Minister in saving a staffer who had been caught red-handed and publicly admitted graffitiing public property.
There is the poor judgment of a Chief Minister who has politicised Floriade; there is the poor judgment of a Chief Minister who even criticised those who got some sense of excitement out of the Danish royal visit. What happens when the Chief Minister is caught out? He makes yet another song and dance about going it alone. This time we are going to have our own anti-terrorism law. We have the weak link, we have the back door and we have the backdown. Like everything else, it is just more hot air from the Chief Minister. Normally in opposition you are content to sit back and laugh at his behaviour, but not in this case. This time the Chief Minister has brought the ACT into disrepute; this time he has made us the laughing stock of the nation, criticised by a number of his colleagues. The national media are asking “Who is this bumpkin? Who is this guy? What planet is this man from?” I note that he is absolutely on his own on this.
Premier Iemma of New South Wales said yesterday that what New South Wales has agreed to and put into legislation is what was agreed to at COAG. It is not hard; Premier Iemma can do it. That is what we signed up to and it is entirely reasonable that the states cooperate with the commonwealth. I believe that what came out of the COAG meeting was a right balance of tougher laws on terrorism with good protection for individual rights. There you go. There is the New South Wales Labor Premier willing to work with the commonwealth to achieve tougher laws on terrorism but with good protection for individual rights—a sensible approach.
Mr Beattie, the Queensland Premier, was also clear in stating that, even if he agreed with Mr Stanhope’s sentiment, he would not have published the legislation. Mr Bracks, the Premier of Victoria, said yesterday that he was pleased with the Prime Minister’s comment that the legislation will have no more and no less than what was agreed at COAG. That is exactly what we expect. That is another premier who is quite able to work to his word and to his agreement.
I was speaking to a lawyer last night that has raised this issue with other people, including the Law Council of Australia. He asked, “How do you deal with such a breach of confidence?” Indeed I think that, in a lawyerly sense, for a lawyer who breaches confidence of things that have been agreed to there is almost a professional breach of conduct. He was told that the normal process would be to receive a document in confidence, stamped “in confidence”. You would look at that document. If you did not have a waiver from the sender to release it, then you would not release it. If you do not agree with it or you do not think you can keep it, the right thing is to send it back.
The basic tenet underlying the legal system is that things are given in confidence to allow negotiation and consultation to be undertaken at one level but from our Chief Minister—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .