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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (4 December) . . Page.. 4557 ..

MR SPEAKER: I present the report of the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure entitled "Person referred to in Assembly - W.J. Curnow", which includes a dissenting report.

MR MOORE (11.54): I move:

That the report be adopted.

Mr Speaker, this is the first report before this Assembly on somebody who has been referred to in the Assembly and who seeks to exercise a citizen's right of reply. It seems to me that this is a great day for democracy because what this report does is recognise that people who are referred to in the Assembly will now have the opportunity, because we are prepared to stand up for them, to say, "I believe that something said in the Assembly has adversely affected my reputation and therefore I request that my response be included in the parliamentary record in Hansard". The system was established by resolution in May 1995 following a report of the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure entitled "Standing Orders and a Citizen's Right of Reply".

A citizen, in this case Mr Bill Curnow, was referred to in the Assembly and he has sought to have some comments in response put into the record of this Assembly. Mr Speaker, for my part, only last sitting I referred to Mr Tony Powell in what some people would call an intemperate way. I called him the butcher of the Y plan. If Mr Tony Powell wished to put his view through the citizen's right of reply system, I would hope that he would be able to do so, and I invite anybody to suggest that to him if they so wish. A person who has been referred to in such a way, either by name or in such a way as to be readily identified, and who feels that their reputation has been adversely affected, should be able to reply, just as happens in this chamber, Mr Speaker, under standing order 46.

This is not a judgment on the part of this Assembly or on the part of the Administration and Procedure Committee as to whether or not the person was adversely affected. It is because the individual feels that they were adversely affected. That is why it is important to protect the individual's right to respond. It is part of improving the democratic process. A similar process applies in the Senate. We were fortunate enough to have somebody from the Senate come to speak to us, the Deputy Clerk of the Senate and Secretary of the Standing Committee on Privileges, Ms Anne Lynch, who explained exactly how the system operated in the Senate. From her description, my judgment is that if this matter had come before the Senate it would have been treated in the same way as the majority view of the Administration and Procedure Committee treated it.

That leads me, Mr Speaker, to the fact that there is a minority or dissenting report included in this report of the committee. I am terribly disappointed about the dissenting report. I think the dissenting report from Mr Corbell completely misunderstands what we are trying to achieve and also deliberately misrepresents the submission of Mr Curnow's, and I will explain why.

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