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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (4 December) . . Page.. 4563 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

This submission is none of those things. That is what I consider to be the mistake that Mr Corbell has made in misunderstanding the guidelines. We now have the opportunity to ensure that we allow people to put their perspective, whether we agree with them or not. That is what it is about.

MR CORBELL (12.19): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to speak again, briefly.

Leave granted.

MR CORBELL: I thank members. Mr Speaker, Mr Moore suggests that I am mistaken. I would like to assure Mr Moore that I am not mistaken. I have not made a mistake. I reject his claim in the debate today that I have made a mistake. If you look at the two points that Mr Moore raised, you will see that I am quite within my rights to interpret it the way I have. I believe it is the correct way to interpret it.

Mr Moore says that Mr Curnow needs to have said that he claims to have been adversely affected in reputation or in respect of dealings or associations with others. I think the key words there are "has been adversely affected". I think Mr Moore will see in my dissenting report that I say that Mr Curnow has not demonstrated that he has been adversely affected. He has not even claimed that he has been adversely affected. He has claimed that he may have been adversely affected.

Mr Moore: Oh, come on!

MR CORBELL: If Mr Moore wants to enter into an argument about words, we will too. We believe that our position is just as legitimate. It is entirely appropriate for members in this place to argue the toss about how we interpret the guidelines. We believe that the interpretation of the guidelines that Mr Moore is advocating here today is not appropriate for the citizen's right of reply. The citizen's right of reply is about ensuring that an injustice done to a citizen can be corrected in the Hansard record. That is not what Mr Curnow is doing.

Mr Moore highlighted the other guideline that is in the resolution, guideline (1)(c), where the Speaker has to make a decision about whether the submission is not obviously trivial or frivolous, vexatious or offensive in character. Mr Speaker, I would argue that you made a decision that it was not and you wanted the Administration and Procedure Committee to consider it, and I accept that that was an entirely appropriate decision for you to make. But that does not rule out the committee making a decision that the submission was frivolous, vexatious, or offensive or trivial in nature. It is entirely appropriate that I, as a member of the Administration and Procedure Committee, make the decision that it is frivolous and vexatious, and that it is a perpetuation of the debate. It is not an attempt to correct the record. It is an attempt to perpetuate the debate. That is why I dissented from the majority recommendation of the committee, and I believe it is an entirely appropriate dissent to make.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Response incorporated at Appendix 5.

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