Legislative Assembly for the ACT: Week 9 Hansard (19 August) . . Page.. 3964..
MR CORBELL (continuing):
further. I understand there is agreement to adjourn this bill after the agreement in principle. I commend the bill to the Assembly.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Debate (on motion by Mrs Dunne ) adjourned to the next sitting.
Suspension of standing and temporary orders
Motion (by Mr Hargreaves ) agreed to, with the concurrence of an absolute majority:
That so much of the standing and temporary orders be suspended as would prevent order of the day, Assembly business, relating to the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure-Report 7-Person referred to in Assembly-Mr L Burke, being called on forthwith.
Administration and Procedure-Standing Committee
MS TUCKER (5.19): I seek leave to speak again.
MS TUCKER: I thank members for giving me the opportunity to speak to this matter in more detail. After considering the matter, I will not be supporting Mrs Dunne's amendment, but I do have a lot of sympathy with the points that she raised. I have had a look at the resolution regarding the right of reply. It is not a standing order, as people have been saying this morning. The resolution is basically about a person feeling as though his or her reputation has been the subject of a serious adverse imputation or reflection.
I have looked at what was said in the Assembly and I think that it fits in with being serious or reasonably serious. I have also looked at Odgers' Australian Senate Practice, which is often used by us as a guide. On page 436, talking about the question of adverse reflections, it says:
The rules deal with adverse "reflections", that is, evidence which reflects adversely "on a person"(including an organisation) rather than on the merits or reliability of an argument or opinion. To bring the rules into operation, a reflection on a person must be reasonably serious, for example, of a kind which would, in other circumstances, usually be successfully pursued in an action for defamation. Generally, a reflection of poor performance (for example, that relevant matters have been overlooked) is not likely to be viewed as adverse. On the other hand,