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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (4 December) . . Page.. 4561 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

where he had been misrepresented, and he had not demonstrated any grounds where his character had been impugned. He suggested it might have been, but he did not demonstrate that it had been. Mr Speaker, in conclusion, Mr Curnow has failed to demonstrate why his citizen's right of reply should be incorporated in Hansard.

I want to place on the record that the Labor Party does believe that there is an important role for the citizen's right of reply, but the role is not to allow citizens to continue a debate. Our democracy offers other forums for people to continue to advocate their cause, to represent their views to their elected representatives, to lobby and pressure their elected representatives; but that is not what citizen's right of reply is. Under standing order 46, when we stand up in this place, we are not allowed to debate the issue, and neither should Mr Curnow be. I feel that that is what he is doing.

Mr Speaker, if the Assembly is prepared to accept the recommendation of the majority on the Administration and Procedure Committee, and it seems to me that it is, then I believe the Assembly is establishing a very dangerous precedent. The precedent the Assembly is establishing is that it is opening up a situation where hypothetically any time a member in this place questions the pace of development or redevelopment in the city, any time a member in this place questions the aspirations or determinations of the trade union movement, we will have opened up the possibility for any developer or any trade unionist, or anyone else for that matter, to come into this place and say, "I believe my reputation has been impugned because you made a critical comment about the trade union movement, about development, about an environmental organisation, or whatever".

That is not what the citizen's right of reply is for. The citizen's right of reply is not for debating the issue. The citizen's right of reply is there to give citizens the opportunity to rectify where something wrong and misleading has been said about them in the chamber. That is not what has occurred in this situation, and I believe it is incumbent upon this Assembly to not accept the standing committee's recommendation. Unfortunately, I feel that it will.

MS TUCKER (12.13): I would like to make a couple of comments on this. I was supportive of the report. Mr Corbell obviously is convinced by the arguments he just put, but I am not. The resolution of the Assembly says:

Where a person or corporation who has been referred to by name, or in such a way as to be readily identified, in the Assembly, makes a submission in writing to the Speaker:

(a) claiming that the person or corporation has been adversely affected in reputation or in respect of dealings or associations with others ...

It is quite clear that Mr Curnow has claimed that he has been adversely affected. I am not going to go into the debate about the issue, but there is ambiguity in what Mr Whitecross said. I am perfectly willing to accept that what Mr Whitecross said he meant is what he meant, but I am also quite willing to acknowledge that Mr Curnow has the right to feel that because it is ambiguous he wants to clarify his position. That is all he is doing, and I cannot see why that is such a worry to Labor.

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