Page 3411 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 25 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Let me say at the outset that I know Dr Tomlinson quite well and I think he is a man who has a great deal to offer the ACT community. However, I believe that on the occasion to which I have drawn attention in this motion Dr Tomlinson crossed the line from acceptable and decent behaviour in the course of public debate on issues that affect our community and entered into an area where debate became below the standard we would expect of people who are, as it were, figures in the community and whom we would expect to make responsible contributions.
In a publication that has the excuse of being obscure, I suppose - the Green Left Weekly, published on 15 July 1992 - Dr Tomlinson published a poem that contained a number of comments or statements about the Australian Federal Police, who provide policing services in this Territory, and made references also to the late Assistant Commissioner Colin Winchester. I will not dignify the poem by reading it into the Hansard. I note only that it contains a number of scurrilous and scandalous assertions and that it represents an attitude towards the police in this Territory that I believe none of us could afford ever to uphold.
I believe that the allegations contained in the poem are sick, tasteless and highly offensive, and I believe that it behoves this Assembly to put as much distance as possible between those sentiments and us. I also believe that it is important for us at the same time to reaffirm our confidence in the very high standard that is set by officers of the Australian Federal Police, who do an important job, a vital job, for the welfare of this community, and to reaffirm our commitment to the protection of citizens of the Territory through the agency of the Australian Federal Police.
Clearly, there are certain obligations on all of us who take part in debate on major issues in this community to abide by certain standards, to operate under certain obligations. I believe that the first and foremost of those obligations is to debate matters in a responsible manner. It is extremely easy for people in the position of, for example, those of us in this place to make statements that are irresponsible, that act to ignite public hatred, and that could in certain circumstances cause grave harm to the community interest.
Mr Wood: I take great care. Speak for yourself.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Wood indicates that he always says things in a responsible fashion, and I am sure that that is very true. I hope that it is true of all of us in this place. I think that on occasions we get tempted to say things we ought not to say, and occasionally we have succumbed to that. We all might have been guilty at least once of succumbing to temptation, at least in part; but, when we do, we are drawn up pretty quickly on those matters and we accept that that sort of behaviour, for the most part, is beyond the pale. I think Dr Tomlinson in this particular case has indicated that he understands that he went beyond the pale, that what he did was unacceptable and a tasteless intervention in a matter that has caused serious concern among the Australian Federal Police and also the family of the late Colin Winchester.
We have the duty I mentioned to debate responsibly, and that is because all of us who take part in debate on public issues in this community represent a constituency of one sort or another. Obviously, those of us who sit in this place have a direct constituency based on our election to the Assembly, with whatever
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .