The ACT Attorney-General, Terry Connolly, has legally pulled the rug from under a major part of the Opposition’s submission to the Vitab inquiry.
The Opposition tried to say the former Minister for Sport, Wayne Berry, behaved badly by telling the Assembly that all was well with ACTTAB when he fact he knew all was not well, because Victoria had given notice that it was withdrawing from its super-pool arrangement with the ACT which would result in ACTTAB losing revenue and exposing ACTTAB to a breach of contract action by Vitab.
Connolly has written to Speaker saying the 1688 English Bill of Rights as incorporated into Australian House of Representatives practice and thence into ACT Legislative Assembly practice has held that freedom of speech by Members of Parliament is paramount. It is so important that no-one can question it in a court of law, Royal Commission or inquiry. Quaint, a hang-up from the 17th century wars between Parliament and the English Crown, but quite right. And the Speaker, Roberta McRae, agrees.
Vitab inquirer Dennis Pearce will now have to ignore that part of the Opposition’s submission. What Connolly says is good legal principle and good common sense. Members of Parliament should not be questioned, held responsible for, sued over or otherwise impugned for what they say in Parliament in any court or any inquiry. To do so would inhibit their freedom represent their electors.
There is only one place where a Member of Parliament is answerable for what he or she says in Parliament _ that is in the Parliament itself.
However, when the Opposition and Independents wanted to do precisely that last month in a no-confidence motion against Berry, Connolly and others in the Government said, “”Oh no you don’t, this issue is being dealt with by an inquiry. You cannot pre-empt the inquiry.”
Well, the Government cannot have it both ways.
It was right yesterday, and wrong during the no-confidence motion. What Connolly did yesterday was vindicate the stand taken by the Opposition and the Independents during the no-confidence motion _ that they would not wait for the Pearce inquiry, that the proper place to question and judge the statements to Parliament of a Minister or other MP is in the Parliament itself.
Nor can the Opposition have it both ways. Having accused Berry of misleading the House in the House, they cannot have a second bash at that in the inquiry. They, and Pearce, however, can question and inquire into Berry’s conduct outside the House: what transpired between Berry and his bureaucrats and the ACT TAB. That no doubt will be the main issue in Professor Pearce’s report.