Page 3170 - Week 10 - Thursday, 16 September 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
reply, it is not at the same level as a member. On the other hand, it is also true to say that a member has been elected and that freedom of speech is part and parcel of the responsibilities and privileges that go with that election. A citizen who seeks to reply has not been given that responsibility by the community in a democratic way. The motion also recognises the need for members, while fearlessly performing their duties, to have regard to the rights of others.
Madam Speaker, I think it is true to say that any member here who has used parliamentary privilege has not done so lightly. They have done so after a great deal of thought and consideration. I find interesting the general approach that members have under the circumstances. When members have availed themselves of the power of parliamentary privilege I have observed the distress that is clearly evident. Nevertheless, Madam Speaker, I think it is appropriate that the Assembly adopt this motion that clearly sets out the way we should deal with and the way we should think about the use of parliamentary privilege. With those few words, Madam Speaker, I commend the motion to the Assembly.
MR LAMONT (11.01): The Government also will be supporting this motion. We do so for a number of reasons, Madam Speaker, not the least of which is the history which gave rise to the need for the Assembly to consider both the motion that we have just adopted and this motion. It arose out of a number of issues which were discussed when the report of the standing committee was first tabled. I think it is important, when this Assembly is considering and voting on this motion, that we again draw some attention to that. The last occasion upon which an Assembly member referred to matters that were considered to be somewhat close to the mark in terms of the spirit and intent of this motion was when Mr Moore named a range of alleged activities and persons here in this Assembly.
Mr Moore: That is not true. What about Charles Wright? That is more recent.
MR LAMONT: I am sorry; I withdraw. The second last time that this occurred was when Mr Moore unmercifully slagged a range of people. Mr Moore, I believe, is contrite on this day about that and acknowledges that those comments were untrue. He acknowledges that they were inappropriate and he also acknowledges that, had he his druthers, that occasion would not have occurred in the way in which it did.
This motion draws quite clearly to the attention of all members that there is an added responsibility - not a diminished responsibility, but an added responsibility - now placed on us because we do have citizen's right of reply. It is not good enough to say, "Because this person, or these persons, or this organisation now have a right of reply, it frees up my obligation to be careful in terms of improper imputation in respect of that person, those persons or that corporation". This motion is designed to remind members and the community that it is a quite serious trust that we have been given by the community in the context of parliamentary privilege. If this trust is abused, and continually abused, not only will we find that the esteem in which this Assembly is held is diminished but also the esteem in which individual members of this Assembly are held is diminished. The actions of one, in fact, reflect upon the integrity of the many.
The last time that parliamentary privilege was used to draw improper motive and to impugn the integrity of a person not of this chamber, I think, also provides a glaring example as to where, in the minds of some, an abuse of parliamentary privilege occurs.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .