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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 8 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 2643 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I have spoken to Mr Humphries about this. He was at one point suggesting that I was raising this matter of public importance because I wanted to get my legal fees paid by taxpayers. That is not the case. I did speak to Mr Humphries about this point earlier on, because naturally I was interested to know whether I was covered. I did have discussions, but Mr Humphries made it quite clear that, according to his advice, I would not be covered and I would not be able to have my legal expenses paid, because I would not be seen to have been working in an official capacity. It seems that the advice was that only Ministers or members in special positions, perhaps chairs of committees and so on, might come within that definition. Basically, I am on my own in this matter. I have accepted that as his view.

This matter of public importance is definitely about the broader implications for democracy and also about the implications of outsourcing government responsibilities, whether through privatisation or corporatisation. Where are the ministerial responsibility and accountability generally? I have been assured by Mr Humphries that in this debate he will not be pursuing the line that I am raising this matter to get my legal expenses paid. That is great. We will be able to address broader issues. This could be happening to any of us and I think it deserves serious debate.

I have chosen not to apologise publicly for my statements, because I believe that this was an attempt at intimidation. I consider that public debate on this issue is not only appropriate but also an obligation of elected Assembly members. I also consider it to be inappropriate for a Territory-owned corporation like ACTEW or the chief executive of such a corporation to seek to stifle public debate on such an important issue through the threat of a defamation action. Dr Sargent sought and received coverage of the ACTEW perspective in the public discussion at the time. This is surely the appropriate forum for robust debate on such important issues in a democracy such as ours.

I did notice from reading the transcripts of radio interviews which took place regarding this matter that when Dr Sargent was interviewed he was not afraid to cast aspersions on my abilities, but I am not going to sue him about that, am I? I expect that. That is part of the debate. While I do regret any personal offence taken by Dr Sargent, I find it extraordinary that he has taken my comments in any way personally. I noticed in the Chronicle last week that Dr Sargent has said this about me:

The problem is that, at the moment, she doesn't seem to think that she has to respect the law of the land ...

Dr Sargent is threatening to sue me for saying less than that, for saying that I thought ACTEW, a Territory-owned corporation, has failed in its statutory obligations. There was no mention in my statement of his name or the law of the land. For heaven's sake, Mr Speaker, what are we coming to? In the debate yesterday several members supported the value of vigorous debate, and I made it clear also that, while I want to see greater inclusion of all members of this place in decision-making processes, and perhaps sometimes less of an adversarial approach, I am a supporter of strong and passionate debate. I think it comes with the work. It is really quite disturbing and inappropriate that my comments should have been taken in the way they were.

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