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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (4 December) . . Page.. 4560 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

I would like to outline those again, for members who might be listening. The first is that in a citizen's right of reply a citizen needs to demonstrate that their credibility or their reputation has been impugned by the comments of a member in this place. Mr Curnow says in his statement that Mr Whitecross's comments "could well impugn my credibility with other people". In other words, it is possible that it could be impugned. Then he goes on to say, "Because it is possible that they might be, they have been". That is what Mr Curnow says in his comments. In his comments Mr Curnow says this:

I conclude that my reputation and dealings or associations with others have been adversely affected and my office as president of the Cyclists' Rights Action Group has been injured.

He argues that because his credibility and reputation might have been impugned it has been impugned. At no stage in his submission did he demonstrate how it had been impugned.

Mrs Carnell: I have to say that this is very precious.

MR CORBELL: Chief Minister, the standing orders and the guidelines for a citizen's right of reply require that a person seeking a citizen's right of reply demonstrate that their reputation or dealings have been impugned, and he has not done that. On that ground alone, Mr Speaker, I believe it was not appropriate for the Administration and Procedure Committee to recommend that the right of reply be accepted by the Assembly.

Mr Speaker, the second point I want to make is in relation to Mr Curnow's grounds on which he sought right of reply. Mr Curnow argued that Mr Whitecross said that Mr Curnow did not supply him with information, did not supply him with evidence, on the cause that he, Mr Curnow, was advocating. He went on subsequently to present information that he said he had supplied to Mr Whitecross. That is not in dispute. It is not in dispute that Mr Curnow did supply information to Mr Whitecross, because it is quite clear that he did. Mr Whitecross, in his submission to the Administration and Procedure Committee, said that, and Mr Curnow in his submission also said that. They both indicated that.

Mr Speaker, what Mr Whitecross was saying was not that the information or evidence had not been provided; it was that the evidence that had been provided had not convinced Mr Whitecross of the credibility of Mr Curnow's cause. That is a decision that members in this place make every day when we receive submissions. When we receive representations from community groups, from individuals and from organisations we make assessments about which information is of greater value and which is of lesser value, and we make decisions about which way we are going to vote on or discuss a particular issue. That is a legitimate decision for a member to make.

What Mr Curnow is saying is this: "Because Mr Whitecross did not agree with me I want to continue this debate, and I want my view put into Hansard". Well, I am sorry, but Mr Curnow lost the debate in this Assembly, and Mr Moore lost the debate in this Assembly on the issue that Mr Curnow was advocating. It is not acceptable for a citizen to use the right of reply process to perpetuate a debate, and I firmly believe that that is what he was doing. He was debating the issue. He had not demonstrated any grounds

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