Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 8 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 2650 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

I believe that it is absolutely fundamental that debates about the conduct of government business, public enterprises and Territory-owned corporations ought to be conducted by way of debate and not by way of litigation. I agree with Ms Tucker and Mr Kaine that it is very difficult to be prescriptive about this, because those individuals have rights as well, including the right to protect their reputation if their reputation has been attacked. In exercising that right, an obligation falls on them, whether they are individuals or corporations, Mr Kaine, to consider the public interest and to consider their responsibility to debate matters which are within the public realm, rather than treat them purely as personal and individual matters.

The matter to which Ms Tucker referred seems to me to be, on the face of it, a debate about policy. There has been some debate between ACTEW and Ms Tucker about those policy matters. I think it is appropriate that there be that debate. I would encourage Ms Tucker, ACTEW and anybody else who is interested in the matter to conduct their debate about the appropriateness of the Yallourn deal as vigorously as they like. But I do not believe that it is appropriate for a Territory-owned corporation or one of its executives to resort to litigation as a way of seeking to stifle that debate. It is certainly open to interpretation by some that that is what has happened in this case. I certainly hope that it is not what has happened. I certainly hope that the Government will look again at the guidelines that they give to their chief executives and to the boards of Territory-owned corporations to ensure that they understand their obligations to conduct matters in the form of public debate, rather than resorting to excessive use of litigation.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (4.56): There are three issues which I think this debate gives rise to. One is the capacity and responsibility of Territory-owned corporations with respect to litigation, particularly litigation against public figures. The second is the law of defamation and how that restricts the capacity of members of this place or others in the community in making statements without fear of litigation. The third is the question of assistance to members of this place in the event that litigation does take place.

On the first question of Territory-owned corporations and their capacity to sue, I think the people in this place have delivered quite a hiding to ACTEW this afternoon, or at least very sternly lectured it on what it should not be doing.

Mr Moore: You have not heard anything yet.

MR HUMPHRIES: Maybe so. I have no doubt that Mr Moore will be making lots of very vigorous statements. I will not be here to hear them, unfortunately; but I can imagine what they will be like.

Mr Kaine: They will probably be provocative.

MR HUMPHRIES: I think they will be provocative. It needs to be clear that there is no evidence whatsoever before the house that ACTEW Corporation, which is the body named in this debate, has at any stage in any way brought pressure to bear on Ms Tucker in respect of comments she made about the hedging contract with Yallourn. I appreciate that members feel strongly that for some reason ACTEW has a role in this matter. I have made inquiries - - -

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .