Free Content Management

Politicians Shy Politicians And The Rule Of Law By Bruce Grundy & staff reporters Queensland MPs have reacted with caution or reluctance to questions about the status of the rule of law in Queensland and their understanding of it. University of Queensland (UQ) students raised the issue with members of parliament following the committal of a man for trial last month for an action allegedly committed in 1995 while public officials who had done the same thing in 1990 did not face the courts. Students participating in UQ's School of Journalism and Communications' justice project sought answers to questions about the rule of law and how it is applied to politicians and public officials in Queensland. Extracts from recent speeches by the Chief Justice of the High Court Murray Gleeson and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales James Spigelman about the rule of law were included with the questions sent to the state's MPs. In the extracts from their addresses both Chief Justices said, in essence, that the law should apply equally to all, and that everyone, "the governors as well as the governed", were subject to the law. In the light of these remarks by the two Chief Justices, MPs were asked if they had any response to the shredding case and whether they believed in the rule of law. Fifteen members responded directly by letter and 30 replies in total have been obtained so far. Many of the responses referred our request to the Attorney-General Rod Welford (including some who contacted Mr Welford asking that he respond directly to us). We were told by his personal staff that some members had been advised to pass our request on to Mr Welford for his attention. In the case of National Party members (and one Liberal) our correspondence was passed to Opposition leader Lawrence Springborg. Of those who chose to respond independently, some said they were either not in a position, or were not competent, to answer the questions. Other replies included: I do not intend responding to your letter; I do not give legal advice; the Minister thanks you for taking the time to write to her about this matter; I do not have the experience or sufficient information to make any comments on the matters you raise; I would need legal advice on the issue; the matter is sub judice; I did not receive your letter/email/fax; I am unable to comment on such a matter because of the demands of the separation of powers. Three members said they were supporters of the rule of law. Another arranged to meet with members of the project to discuss the issues involved. One said he believed the wording of the law relating to the destruction of evidence was uncertain and under common law principles a person accused of an offence under such circumstances was entitled to the benefit of any doubt. The Opposition leader Lawrence Springborg (and his chief of staff Kevin Martin responding on behalf of a National Party member) said no credible evidence had ever been obtained to justify the laying of charges "in the so-called Heiner matter". Both said if such "credible evidence" were obtained, they would expect prosecuting authorities to take appropriate action and lay charges. None of those involved had ever denied the shredding of the Heiner documents had occurred and indeed the shredding had been admitted within weeks of it being carried out. Back To Top 1259 page visits Content Management Software 2008