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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 8 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 2652 ..

Debate resumed.

MR HUMPHRIES: I appreciate that members have views about this and I appreciate that some members clearly believe that Dr Sargent's actions are motivated by, or are in some way done at the instigation of, ACTEW. If that is the case, let me put very clearly on the record that this Government most emphatically repudiates that kind of approach. If ACTEW were to involve itself in any way in these proceedings or proceedings like it, then the shareholders of ACTEW would most clearly represent to ACTEW their distaste and their discouragement of those proceedings. I would go so far as to say that, if ACTEW, despite that, somehow took action against a member of this place, the Executive would unhesitatingly, as a matter of principle, offer support to a member to contest any proceedings, in defence of that action. That is what we are saying about how we feel about this happening. I appreciate that it would be very easy to say that ACTEW is behind all this, but I would urge members to be aware of the tempering fact that there is not really any evidence, other than the fact that Dr Sargent wrote his first letter on ACTEW letterhead.

The second issue raised is the question of the law of defamation. We would all agree with the first part of the matter of public importance, which refers to the right of members of the Assembly to scrutinise the performance of Territory-owned corporations like ACTEW. The second part is about affirming the right of members "to freely make reasonable public statements on matters of Assembly and public interest without fear of litigation". If that phrase is excised from the reference to Territory-owned corporations, I do not think we can all support it, unless we also support dramatic change in the law of defamation in the Territory. Nobody has the right to go out and to make any statements without regard to the consequences.

Ms Tucker: Reasonable public statements.

MR HUMPHRIES: The law of defamation does not operate just on making a statement which is reasonable. There are two headings of defence. The statement has to be true and - I think I am correctly defining the law - it has to be in the public interest. It might be reasonable but, arguably, it might not be in the public interest. I do not want to get into the fine argument about that. I do not think Ms Tucker is necessarily arguing for a change in the law of defamation. At least, I do not think that is what she is saying. If she is, then I would be interested in what she has to say about that.

Ms Tucker also made reference to the question of legal assistance to members, saying that she had approached me about assistance in this litigation and that I had indicated, on the basis of advice I had received, that I was not able to offer that assistance. I want to make one thing clear. I am leaving the door ajar in this matter to deal with the question of assistance to members. It is the Government's view that we need to very carefully define the circumstances in which assistance can be offered to members.

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