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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (4 December) . . Page.. 4559 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

It seems to me, Mr Speaker, that Mr Corbell's comments are simply precious. Comments were made and Mr Curnow has put a good case. I do not want to get into a debate on the issue, but he has put a good case that his reputation has been affected, not about the issue itself. That is what it is, Mr Speaker - a good case that he believes his reputation has been affected. That is the critical thing to me. I think that should be the critical thing in our judgment when dealing with such issues. His reputation has been affected, particularly amongst his peers. That is his concern. Why is it so hard for us to allow somebody to present that view? It ought not be hard.

I am very disappointed, Mr Speaker, that the very first time this is tested the Labor Party says, "No, we are not going to let somebody actually do it. It is all right in principle; but, as soon as somebody actually wants to do it and it affects us, we are not going to do it". I think that is, at the very least, disappointing. It certainly is precious, as I said. Mr Speaker, I believe that the appropriate way to deal with this report to the Assembly is to adopt it and ensure that the comments by Mr Curnow are included in Hansard. This citizen, who feels he has been wronged, should have the opportunity to have that correction put on the record.

It is very important, Mr Speaker, to note that that correction is not about attacking the person who made the comments in the first place. It is about putting his perspective on the way he saw things. That is what it is about, and that is what we should allow citizens to do to enhance our democracy. The reason it enhances our democracy is that it does the very opposite thing to what Mr Osborne was talking about a few minutes ago in a previous debate. When Mr Osborne was speaking in that debate - we will get back to it, I am sure - he was saying, "Let the majority view rule. If the majority have a view and that is what is good for them, that is the way it ought to be". He did go on further, of course, to talk about his own constituents and not worrying about others who do not vote for him.

If you always take the view, "That is what the majority thinks", it means the minority misses out. The real test of democracy is how well you look after your minorities, and the real test in this Assembly will be how well we look after people who feel they have been offended. As I say, Mr Speaker, it is not that we do not do it; we do. On a number of occasions, reasonably rarely, members do do that. I was the person who did it very recently with reference to Mr Tony Powell. If he wished to do this, I would encourage members to ensure that he got his right of reply.

MR CORBELL (12.05): Mr Speaker, I did dissent from the decision of the majority of my colleagues on the Administration and Procedure Committee. I did that because I was not prepared to accept the argument that they put to me that Mr Curnow's submission fitted within the guidelines for a citizen's right of reply. It is entirely legitimate for me, Mr Moore, to make the point in a dissenting report. If you cannot accept that a member disagrees with you, I think you have a few steps to take yet. You should not stand in this place and suggest that simply because someone deigns to disagree with you on an issue they are being precious. I believe that I have submitted very clearly two strong arguments on why this citizen's right of reply should not be accepted by this Assembly.

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