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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2430 ..

and the appeal period for the re-trial has ended. Such restrictions are not placed on the media. The media, except in rare circumstances, are entitled to report on convictions straightaway. If the appeal is later successful, the outcome of the appeal will usually be reported. The extra measures of protection included in this section reflect the seriousness of publication of such matters by a government official. No further measures are needed and certainly not the provision that requires the chief executive to invite representations.

MRS CROSS (12.40): I will be supporting Mr Pratt’s amendment; in fact, I will speak to amendments 6 to 8, which give a measure of recourse to those who get named and shamed. It ensures that the people or businesses that the chief executive wishes to name and shame are given written notice of the chief executive’s intentions and, further, are given 28 days to show cause as to why they should not be named and shamed. This is extremely important as naming and shaming can substantially damage a business. Whilst this is warranted in some instances, it is not always the case. Hence, I will be supporting Mr Pratt’s amendments that provide businesses a measure of recourse, allowing them to show why they should not be named and shamed.

MS TUCKER (12.41): I will speak to Mr Pratt’s amendments Nos 6, 7 and 8. These amendments address a problem that is dealt with more effectively in the government’s next three amendments. The threat of suffering from unreasonable exposure regarding an offence is best addressed by limiting what the chief executive can publish rather than building in a consultation process. With the passage of government amendments, the CEO will be able to publish only information that is already on the public record in regard to offences. Any unreasonable damage can be addressed through action under the Civil Law (Wrongs) Bill.

MS DUNDAS (12.42): I am not convinced that Mr Pratt’s amendments are necessary. I think I understand what the intention is, but I note that the Minister for Education and Training is moving amendments in this section to reduce the protection of the chief executive from defamation laws and to reduce the discretion of WorkCover in the content of any advertising. Those amendments are based on amendments that I moved previously to the Dangerous Substances Bill and that were supported by the Assembly. I thank the minister for agreeing to alter them in this piece of legislation as well.

That being said, government agencies already have the same ability to use public notification as a means of conveying public information as anyone else. If they go beyond their mandate, they will still be subject to court action like anyone else. The clauses here restrict the use of the media by the agency by ensuring that they publish only information that has been decided on in a court and then only after any appeals have been heard. With that in mind, I think Mr Pratt’s amendments are unnecessary and I will not be supporting them.

Question put:

That Mr Pratt’s amendment be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

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