Page 3791 - Week 10 - Thursday, 27 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The committee quotes a number of sources, and I think one of the most useful ones is the reference from McGee’s Parliamentary Practice of New Zealand, which highlights the way that legislatures view the issue of interference:
There is no contempt in respect of attempts to influence Members, even by bringing pressure to bear on them … unless there is a threat to do something which is improper in itself or which is of such an extraordinary or exaggerated nature that it goes beyond an attempt to influence the Member and becomes an attempt to intimidate.
Quite clearly, there was no threat by Mr Cormack to do anything improper. Nor was it of such an extraordinary or exaggerated nature that it went beyond the normal representations that any person can make to a member in this place. That is the issue at the heart of this debate. There is certainly no breach of privilege, and there is certainly no contempt in terms of interfering with the member in the course of his duties. Indeed, it was quite clear that Mr Cormack’s letter had no impact on Mr Hanson. It did not interfere in him exercising his duties at all, nor did it intend to. For those reasons, there is certainly no contempt.
It is the case that the committee feels that Mr Cormack’s letter certainly inflamed Mr Hanson’s view of what was going on and inflamed his response. To that extent, it was ill advised. But we all say things that, perhaps in hindsight, we feel were not helpful, but this is certainly is not casting any doubt on the judgement or the capability of Mr Cormack as a respected and effective senior public servant in the ACT administration. Indeed, the greater crime was for the Liberal Party to seek to involve a senior public servant in such a scurrilous political action. I think the failure of that strategy is evidenced by the findings of the committee, which make it clear and unequivocal that in no respect did Mr Cormack breach Mr Hanson’s privileges and in no respect was a contempt committed or even intended to be committed.
There is one recommendation which deals with the issue of correspondence between public servants and non-executive members of the Assembly. The guidelines that are issued to public servants are not as fulsome as they could be on this matter, and I think it would be helpful for this issue to be clarified so that any doubt can be removed about how these matters occur. I think it is fair to say that there are dealings between senior public servants and non-executive members in this place. That happens in respect of statutory officers and it happens in respect of briefings and other information and meetings attended by senior public servants and non-executive members of this place. It is not like it is unusual, but I think there is certainly some value in putting the matter beyond doubt by clarifying the guidelines accordingly.
Finally, I note that the issue of legal representation of non-executive members was raised. The committee took the view that this was a matter best pursued, if members felt it should be, in this place or through some other form of inquiry and that it was not a direct consideration for this committee.
Again, I think this is a reasoned and sensible report, and the only criticism that can be brought is to the conduct of the Liberal Party, who have sought to use this process to pursue a political agenda and certainly to take it well beyond the matters that a select committee on privileges should deal with—that is, issues around privilege and contempt.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .