Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 72 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

The committee felt that as a first step it would be appropriate - this is recommendation 3 - that "the legislation be amended to remove any legal impediment to the broadcasting to the public of designated significant and landmark debates during the proceedings of the Assembly or its committees on an experimental basis". So it is appropriate for us to ensure that there is the opportunity for debates to be broadcast, but for those debates to be limited by some control mechanisms. The committee also recommended that prime control go to the Speaker, who then consults with the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure, rather than the way it had been handled in the Bill. The emphasis of the committee's report, I believe, is that we take this issue step by step rather than opening it completely in the initial instance.

There was some debate and some concern, Mr Speaker, over the matter of privilege. That issue is referred to in the recommendations. Certainly, the Assembly proceedings should be broadcast to the ACT Public Service via ACTnet, for example, and there should be absolute privilege provided there. In other places we should have qualified privilege. Having qualified privilege means that, although the networks are protected for fair reporting, if they report in a way that misleads, or use part of somebody's speech to give an impression of something that is not truthful, that privilege would not apply.

Those are the sorts of issues that we dealt with. I believe, Mr Speaker, that this committee's report, if adopted by the Assembly, will be a very sensible first step. This is about fundamental issues of free speech, of openness in what we do; but we also need to keep in mind that we may well be handing over control to other organisations to vet the way they report. One of the great methods of control, Mr Speaker, is the decision as to what you include and what you exclude from anything you are dealing with, whether it be a scientific study, whether it be proceedings of the Assembly, or whether it be a speech you are making. That decision to include or exclude is one of the most fundamental ways of attempting to change community attitudes. Therefore, it is appropriate, I believe, Mr Speaker, that we go very carefully down the path of determining what we include and what we exclude from such broadcasts.

In the initial instance the committee believed that the appropriate way to handle that was with significant landmark debates which are clearly of interest to the community. Looking back over the life of this Assembly, Mr Speaker, I suppose there are four or five landmark debates that would fit into that category. I think they would include the corporatisation of ACTEW, as an example, perhaps the Bill on active euthanasia, and a couple of others. I think the reason why we suggested that that control mechanism should remain with the Speaker in consultation with the Administration and Procedure Committee is to ensure that it is not the decision of government as to what is excluded and what is not excluded.

Ms McRae: Fat chance!

MR MOORE: I heard Ms McRae say "fat chance" in terms of that exclusion. I find that quite surprising, Mr Speaker, because Ms McRae was chair of the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedures for three years. I believe that she would have had the opportunity to observe how carefully that committee operates and, under her stewardship as chair of that committee, how much care was taken to ensure that things were done as fairly as possible. Allow me to assure her, as a member of the current committee as well

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .