Page 4772 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 28 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
If you are a public servant working in your department -
that is, Mr Humphries' department -
and you have the temerity to go on the ABC and indicate your dissatisfaction with Government policy, you get threatened with defamation action from senior public servants.
Mr Humphries has requested withdrawal on several bases. One was that Mr Connolly's words and descriptions were unparliamentary. Unfortunately, I cannot agree with this proposition that Mr Connolly's words were unparliamentary. Another was that Mr Connolly suggested that Mr Humphries had taken the action discussed, that is, the threat of defamation action. According to the Hansard record, Mr Connolly did not say that, and, therefore, there is no personal imputation on Mr Humphries as such.
A third was that Mr Connolly stated, in summary, that senior public servants in the health department threatened other health department public servants with defamation action for being outspoken. Mr Connolly produced what he considers to be proof of his statement. I will not comment one way or the other on the letter presented by Mr Connolly. However, in my opinion, Mr Connolly has raised an issue which is obviously unpalatable to the Government but which is not unparliamentary. That is the distinction that I make. Therefore, Mr Humphries, I do not support your call for withdrawal of the words spoken by Mr Connolly in this case.
MR HUMPHRIES (Minister for Health, Education and the Arts), by leave: I do not wish to quibble about your ruling; I accept it, of course. I do believe, however, that Mr Connolly has made a reference to a practice of the Government. I might refer you, Mr Speaker, to a sentence used just before the words that you read. Mr Connolly said:
And well they might be worried, because there is a disturbing tendency from this Government to go after critics.
It was immediately after that sentence that the comments referred to were made.
I would certainly argue that there was an imputation there about government practice. That is not a matter to be dealt with by means of asking for a withdrawal of an imputation, but it is one that we should debate in this house. It is one to which I believe there is no substance. I believe that the letter produced by Mr Connolly produces no substance, but that is a matter for another time and another place.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .