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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Thursday, 19 August 2004) . . Page.. 3964 ..

further. I understand there is agreement to adjourn this bill after the agreement in principle. I commend the bill to the Assembly.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Detail stage

Clause 1.

Debate (on motion by Mrs Dunne) adjourned to the next sitting.

Suspension of standing and temporary orders

Motion (by Mr Hargreaves) agreed to, with the concurrence of an absolute majority:

That so much of the standing and temporary orders be suspended as would prevent order of the day, Assembly business, relating to the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure—Report 7—Person referred to in Assembly—Mr L Burke, being called on forthwith.

Administration and Procedure—Standing Committee

Report 7

Debate resumed.

MS TUCKER (5.19): I seek leave to speak again.

Leave granted.

MS TUCKER: I thank members for giving me the opportunity to speak to this matter in more detail. After considering the matter, I will not be supporting Mrs Dunne’s amendment, but I do have a lot of sympathy with the points that she raised. I have had a look at the resolution regarding the right of reply. It is not a standing order, as people have been saying this morning. The resolution is basically about a person feeling as though his or her reputation has been the subject of a serious adverse imputation or reflection.

I have looked at what was said in the Assembly and I think that it fits in with being serious or reasonably serious. I have also looked at Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, which is often used by us as a guide. On page 436, talking about the question of adverse reflections, it says:

The rules deal with adverse “reflections”, that is, evidence which reflects adversely “on a person” (including an organisation) rather than on the merits or reliability of an argument or opinion. To bring the rules into operation, a reflection on a person must be reasonably serious, for example, of a kind which would, in other circumstances, usually be successfully pursued in an action for defamation. Generally, a reflection of poor performance (for example, that relevant matters have been overlooked) is not likely to be viewed as adverse. On the other hand,

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