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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (4 December) . . Page.. 4566 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

Firstly, to use the right of reply the citizen must show that they have been unfairly affected by statements made by an elected representative under privilege.

Mr Moore: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe that Mr Whitecross is reflecting on a vote of the Assembly.

MR SPEAKER: No. I do not uphold the point of order, Mr Moore.

MR WHITECROSS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In Mr Moore's remarks earlier he referred to standing order 46. Anyone who has tried to use standing order 46 knows that you, Mr Speaker, in upholding the standing orders, certainly sit us down quick smart if we do not demonstrate where we have been misrepresented. Mr Speaker, the damage that could be referred to could be commercial, professional and/or personal. The citizen is required to write to the Speaker of the Assembly, making out his or her case. The Speaker then refers the matter to the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure and the standing committee is asked to make a judgment, not only about the relative merits of the case but also about whether it is necessary for a citizen to have a statement tabled in the Assembly and incorporated in Hansard so as to put their side of the case on the public record. I might add at this juncture that this procedure was introduced in 1989 in the Senate. In all the time that it has existed there have been some 20 cases of citizen's right of reply being utilised.

In the case of Mr Curnow, I think it is important to note that at no time during my statements in the Assembly did I name Mr Curnow. I accept that Mr Curnow was named during the debate - I believe by Mr Kaine - but I would hasten to add that it was not by me. Therefore, I would conclude from that that it is quite difficult to prove that any statement I made in the parliament would have impacted on Mr Curnow in such a manner as to cause aggrievement. As I have already outlined, the concept of the right of reply is to ensure that natural justice is available to all citizens. Citizens who believe that their elected representative has misrepresented a fact or statement are provided with the opportunity to correct the record. The process of having to apply to the Speaker for the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure to assess the case ensures impartiality and objectivity, particularly as the committee is not allowed to make value judgments about a claim or about a member's language.

I have, however, been disappointed by the committee's apparent disregard for my right to natural justice. As the Assembly would be aware, and as the committee would be aware - - -

Mr Moore: That is what you are exercising now.

MR WHITECROSS: Listen, Mr Moore, and you will learn. As the committee would be aware, this issue was first raised with the Speaker in August this year. The committee took three months to consider this issue before I was even asked to comment on the efficacy of the claim and the issue surrounding it, by which stage a draft report had been prepared. When I was invited to make a submission to the committee I was provided with three working days - the committee had three months - within which to complete the task. While I understand that the committee has a number of tasks and references, I believe that such a process is less than satisfactory.

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