Page 2734 - Week 09 - Thursday, 26 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
statements have been made which are found in the fullness of time to be incorrect and require withdrawal. The most notable of those was in relation to Mr Gold. Mr Stevenson, to give him credit, at the end of the day stood up and publicly withdrew and apologised for the statements he had made. Nevertheless, the inestimable damage that was done to Mr Gold cannot be redressed by Mr Gold, two years after the event, being able to place on the public record in the Hansard of the ACT Legislative Assembly a rebuttal of the arguments that were put in the first instance. That is exactly the same position as applies on a number of other occasions in this Assembly.
What we are discussing today is the provision of an opportunity for persons who believe that they have been maligned to have some form of redress. I say to you in no uncertain terms that, as was exhibited yesterday, it does not matter what the substance of the argument is, it does not matter what its truthfulness is, it does not matter in what direction a particular political party or individual wishes to pursue an issue; the damage is invariably done with the utterance of the word. This procedure is an attempt at least to ameliorate some of that damage. It cannot, in truth, ameliorate all the damage that is done.
I hope that two things arise out of the endorsement of this proposition today. The first is that members of the Assembly realise that parliamentary privilege is a two-edged sword. Not only does it give you rights - rights to free speech, rights to bring matters before the public's attention - but it also creates an obligation. That obligation is one of the sacred trusts in this chamber, that is, that you do not, for malicious, vindictive or other reasons, embark upon a character assassination of anybody.
Mr Kaine: That includes members of this chamber as well, Mr Lamont.
MR LAMONT: Mr Kaine, I most certainly agree with you. I believe that this Assembly should take the opportunity, when debating this important matter, to reflect upon that very point. Maybe the activities we have seen over the last number of weeks will cease as a result. It would certainly be my expectation and my hope that that would occur.
I have much pleasure in endorsing the motion moved by Mr Humphries to adopt this new standing order, and I hope that members of the community now feel more comfortable with the fact that their elected representatives, in this Assembly at least, are providing the opportunity for them to respond to statements made under parliamentary privilege.
MR MOORE (11.08): In rising to speak on this report, I would like, first of all, to draw to members' attention the research done by Ms Maureen Weeks, who put in a tremendous amount of work. I think other members of the committee, and you, Madam Speaker, recognise the excellent research and background work provided to members of the committee to allow us to understand the ramifications of what has gone on in other parliaments and the issues involved. The speeches by my colleagues Mr Humphries and Mr Lamont indicate their understanding of the issues involved.
I accept that I have been on both sides of the debate. The issue originally came before the Assembly when in an adjournment debate I presented Mr Gold's opinion for him. There was no other form of redress for him, and I felt that that was an appropriate thing to do at that time. Mr Gold, as was mentioned, wrote to members again and again in an attempt to find a way to get redress. Perhaps it is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .