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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 8 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 2647 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

in the best interests of the company at all times, and the Territory Owned Corporations Act requires that, if the Government directs the company to do otherwise, then the company must be underwritten for the non-business decision the Government makes. All in all, I believe that the accountability provisions are well and truly set in place.

Ms Tucker raised the question of commercial-in-confidence documents. I must admit that I sometimes share the concern that corporations, and government bodies generally, can hide behind the proposition that documents are commercial-in-confidence. I think we have a duty to make sure that they are not doing that. There are processes in place by which, if we suspect that there is something that is not quite in order and that the organisation is hiding behind commercial-in-confidence, we can bring that matter into the open. I do not believe that that can be regarded as a successful way of trying to avoid accountability to this place.

The second matter that Ms Tucker includes in her matter of public importance is the question of being able to freely make reasonable public statements on matters of Assembly and public interest. Of course, that ought to be an inherent right, but with that right there goes some responsibility. It stems from the question of privilege. When we make statements in this place, knowing that there is privilege attached, we have a duty to make sure that what we say is reasonable and that if we are reflecting on the professional performance, integrity or character of a person in public office we are sure that what we say is in the public interest.

We have to be sure, unless we are prepared to go the whole nine yards, that what we say about another person is not defamatory. You can say it in here and you may get away with it if you know it to be defamatory; but, if you repeat it outside this place, then there are consequences that flow from that. All I am saying is that we have a duty of care to make sure that we do not impugn somebody's character, professionalism or integrity unreasonably. While we have a right to certain things, we also have some responsibilities that go with it. I am quite sure that Ms Tucker feels that the comments she has referred to in connection with ACTEW meet all the criteria that I have outlined - that they are reasonable, that they are in the public interest and that they are not defamatory. Unfortunately, there is always another side to the story and the other person may make a different interpretation. In that case there are consequences that flow.

The third aspect of this matter of public importance is that we should be able to do all of the aforementioned things without fear of litigation. I agree with that. This Government would not support any government agency or corporation going to litigation on such a matter, and using public funds to do it, acting for the corporation. I know of no case where that has happened, and I do not believe that that is happening now. It is not the corporation that has taken offence at what Ms Tucker has said; it is a private individual. He is taking action in his capacity as a private citizen. There is no way that this Government or this Assembly can curtail the right of a private citizen to go to law if they think they have a case. There is nothing that we can do about that.

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