Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call Senator Boswell.

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Normal practice in the adjournment debate is for there to be two speakers from this side of the chamber and two speakers from the other side of the chamber. We have had two speakers from that side of the chamber; we have had one from this side of the chamber. You have now called the third speaker from that side of the chamber. Convention would suggest that the next speaker should be from this side of the chamber.

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Campbell, in fact there was a speaker from your side listed for the second speaker; however, that speaker was not there, so I called the only speaker that stood in her place, which was Senator Adams. The normal practice in the chamber is to go from one side of the chamber to the other. I am going to Senator Boswell now.

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I understand what you have just said and what you have ruled, but I did not know that what is on a bit of paper is what determines the conventions of this chamber. I thought the convention in this chamber was that there would be two from one side and two from the other side.

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Resume your seat, Senator Campbell. I have heard enough. On most adjournment nights when I have been sitting in the chair there have been two speakers from the government, one from the Labor Party and one from the Australian Democrats.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to read from a letter from Ryan and Bosscher to the Hon. Peter Beattie, dated 10 August 2007. I continue from where Senator Joyce left off. The letter says:

We are aware also that you have earlier declined our client’s request of 15 October 2004, in the wake of the Queensland Court of Appeal’s decision in R v Ensbey, to appoint a Special Prosecutor to fully inquire into this matter. Thus our client is forced to consider the legal process open to him to obtain justice and the bringing to account those persons who may have breached the law.

Of particular recent concern is the fact that you have recently declined to make public the advice provided by Mr Royce Miller QC (former Director of Public Prosecutions) dated 6 January 1997 and your refusal to make public your Government’s report to Her Excellency the Queensland Governor, on your Government’s handling of our client’s allegations. Further you have also declined to table in the Parliament relevant Cabinet Attendance Registers for February and March 1990 and to provide reasons for such refusal.

Given the material that has been collated, and the view of Mr Rofe of the existence of prima facie criminal activity, we now seek from you access to the records referred to in the paragraph above.

The documents to which access is sought, because of their apparent relevance to prima facie breaches of the law, are the following public records held by the Queensland government:

1. A copy of the Cabinet attendance register(s) for 12 February 1990, 19 February 1990 and 5 March 1990;

2. A copy of the 1997 instructions provided to Mr Royce Miller QC and the advice from Mr Miller to the Queensland Government on the findings and recommendations of the 1996 Morris/Howard report into the Heiner Affair (that documentation we understand was referred to in correspondence from the then leader of the opposition, Mr Springborg, to yourself informing you of the fact that there was no objection from the former Borbidge Government to those documents being released into the public domain); and

3. A copy of the 25/26 April 2005 Queensland Government report to Her Excellency Governor Quentin Bryce AC on its handling and findings in respect of the Lindeberg allegations following Her Excellency’s request for same on 21 October 2003, and a copy of all documents and correspondence relating thereto.

Should you maintain objection to now releasing any of that material then we would seek from you a statement of your grounds for such objection.

Given the obvious relevance of the above documents sought by our client in this matter and to the maintaining of public confidence in this State’s judicial system (to say nothing of open and accountable Government in Queensland), we anticipate you would now be prepared to release that material forthwith.

Our client has instructed us that should you continue to refuse to make this material publicly available then he reserves his right to bring appropriate action through the Court system in order to compel the provision of that documentation.

Yours faithfully

RYAN & BOSSCHER LAWYERS

MICHAEL BOSSCHNER

Managing Partner

The government proposes to table the 3,600 page report tomorrow.