Page 1075 - Week 04 - Thursday, 1 April 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Connolly: We do it to one another in question time quite a bit, actually, don't we?
MR HUMPHRIES: Indeed. That happens. In question time we show none of the politeness and gentleness with which we treat our constituents, which is probably just as well. I honestly cannot say that I see anything reprehensible in the Minister using language which was artificially polite and which was not directed towards the critical comments made in that letter by Mr Williams which were the subject of the invitation and which also were commented on later. Mr Connolly seemed to make his tone a little more abrupt subsequently, in the second letter he sent in January, where he said, "I do not intend to participate in your forum, nor do I wish to send a representative". Some of what he must have felt apparently came through in that second letter to some extent. Again that is not unreasonable. It is not misrepresenting the situation. It is simply saying, "I am not proposing to attend your meeting, and that is the case". I do not believe that there is a ground for censuring Mr Connolly based on that allegation.
The second assertion by Mr Stevenson is that the comments misrepresented the tone and content of the letter of invitation and that in describing it in this Assembly as containing aggressive and emotive language - I think that was the phrase that was used - Mr Connolly misrepresented the content. I have read the letter. I think the letter is essentially a fairly balanced and fairly reasoned argument about domestic violence. It is careful to emphasise that members of the Lone Fathers Association do not countenance domestic violence in any circumstances. The correspondent distances himself from Mr Justice Bollen in South Australia, in his comments about domestic violence, but does point out that there is considerable frustration with the present state of domestic violence laws in the ACT.
He then goes on to make what I think is a significantly less reasoned statement - this is the one that has been quoted already a couple of times - about not yielding to a request, in which case a court challenge would be mounted. This is couched in the form of a request; it was characterised by the Minister as a demand. The difference is not a great one, in my opinion, and I think that in the circumstances what the Minister said in respect of those words is not unreasonable. I quote the Minister:
... the "invitation" for me to attend the meeting was in fact a demand that I immediately repeal the domestic violence laws in this Territory -
I think that is a reasonable reading of that letter -
or face a High Court challenge to demonstrate their legality and, by the way, would I like to come to this meeting and explain why I failed to repeal them.
Again, that is not an unreasonable interpretation. I do not think that the difference in interpretation between the tone that I detected from the letter overall and the electricity which the Minister obviously drew from that first particular comment is sufficient ground to make a comment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .