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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (4 December) . . Page.. 4558 ..

Mr Corbell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Moore is suggesting an improper motive.

MR MOORE: I withdraw "deliberately", Mr Speaker. I am sure that Mr Corbell can explain his position when he stands to speak. His report does, however, clearly misrepresent Mr Curnow, and I will explain why I say that. The nub of the argument put by Mr Corbell in his dissenting report is in italics. He says this:

He -

that is, Mr Curnow -

states that "his [Mr Whitecross' comments] could well impugn my credibility with other people".

Mr Corbell then goes on to argue:

The guidelines for accepting a citizen's right of reply clearly require that individuals substantiate the claim that the person has been adversely affected in reputation.

Indeed, that is exactly what Mr Curnow does, because had Mr Corbell bothered to read the next sentence of Mr Curnow's response, instead of drawing a quote out of context, he would have seen the following words:

I conclude that my reputation and dealings or associations with others have been -

not may be -

adversely affected and my office as president of the Cyclists' Action Group has been injured.

Mr Speaker, to me, anyway, it is not of huge significance as to whether he has or has not. The reality is that he feels he has, and that is exactly the same as the way standing order 46 operates in here. When somebody says, "I would like to make a personal explanation under standing order 46", the Speaker's reply is invariably, "Do you claim to have been misrepresented?". The individual then stands and says, "Yes, I claim to have been misrepresented". The person then talks about how they have been misrepresented.

In this case an ordinary citizen does not have that prerogative, but what we have done, correctly - I know that all members agree with this - is say, "When an ordinary citizen has been misrepresented they should be able to use their equivalent of standing order 46 and place their explanation on the record after it has been carefully considered by the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure". It is always easy, in general, to say, "Yes, we want to apply this piece of legislation because we think it is fair"; it is always difficult to say that in a specific case.

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