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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (4 December) . . Page.. 4562 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I will not use the word "precious". What will I say? I think it is rather ungracious, in a way, to deny that right, because there is no way that it is going to be significantly difficult for Mr Whitecross that this person is clearing up what is an ambiguous statement in Hansard. I think it is perfectly reasonable to do this. He obviously feels his reputation has been impugned. He has made that quite clear. He has gone to a lot of trouble to put in this citizen's right of reply. I thought that in this place we were encouraging the community to feel involved in the work we do here, to feel that they have a say, and the citizen's right of reply is a very fundamental way that they can address what they perceive to be injustice. We are obviously in a very privileged position here in terms of what we can say. I think it is disappointing, really, that Labor are not able to accept that what was said was ambiguous and Mr Curnow should have the right to clarify it.

MR MOORE (12.16), in reply: Mr Speaker, as I listened to Mr Corbell speak I decided that he has simply made a mistake, and I went back through the guidelines. In his dissenting report and in his speech, Mr Corbell said that the guidelines for accepting a citizen's right of reply clearly require that individuals substantiate the claim that they have been adversely affected in reputation. He went on to say:

In my opinion Mr Curnow has failed to substantiate this claim ...

When we go to the guidelines - they are included in the report, so members will be able to see them very easily - we see that it is actually not true that the person has to substantiate that they have been adversely affected. I will read the Assembly's resolution. It says this:

(1) Where a person or corporation who has been referred to by name, or in such a way as to be readily identified, in the Assembly, makes a submission in writing to the Speaker:

(a) claiming that the person or corporation has been adversely affected in reputation or in respect of dealings or associations with others, or injured in occupation, trade, office or financial credit, or that the person's privacy has been unreasonably invaded, by reason of that reference to the person or corporation; and

(b) requesting that the person or corporation be able to incorporate an appropriate response in the parliamentary record, ...

Then there is a series of other things that apply. I have checked through that series of other things and it is incorrect to say that we need anything more than the claim. It is the claim that is critical, not the substantiation of the claim. That is how the guidelines are set up - that a person claims, not that they substantiate the claim. There are very good reasons for that. We do not want to get into debate about whether someone's reputation has or has not been affected. What we make a judgement about is whether a submission is not sufficiently serious, or is frivolous, or is vexatious, or is offensive in character.

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