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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Thursday, 19 August 2004) . . Page.. 3965 ..

a statement that a professional person lacks the ability to understand an important conceptual or practical aspect of their profession and, therefore, is not a reliable witness, would be regarded as an adverse reflection. Reflections involving allegations of incompetence, negligence, corruption, deception or prejudice, rather than lesser forms of oversight or inability which are the subject of criticism in general terms, are regarded as adverse reflections. Mere disagreement with another person’s views, methodology or premises is not considered as an adverse reflection.

I would say that what was said in the Assembly would fit into an understanding of what was a serious adverse reflection because, basically, it was about not meeting legal requirements and failing arguably to meet social and moral responsibilities as well. The argument, as has been explained with regard to the resolution on the right of reply, is not about determining the truth or otherwise of the matter. It is about a very simple legalistic definition around the potential to adversely affect the reputation of someone.

Having said that, and having looked at Hansard, I think it fits in and I am surprised at the committee’s response. I also looked at the precedent for the right of reply in the Assembly. I might have been a member of the committee for that. I certainly recall the incident. I have a copy of its report and I can see that I was on the committee, which is probably why I remember it. Mr WJ Curnow had a right of reply at that time about a statement made by Mr Whitecross concerning, in summary, his capacity to represent the community group that he represented, which was involved in cyclists’ rights. Mr Whitecross had said that he had not really been lobbied on the issue and this gentleman asked for a right of reply because he had lobbied very hard on the issue.

Really, that was a much lesser offence in some ways. It was of importance to that man, though, because it was about his reputation as a community activist and it was important to him that it was suggested in this place that he had failed in that community role. It was an important issue for that person and that was accepted. That is a precedent that we have for this Assembly.

I have a problem with Mrs Dunne’s amendment. I understand why she has proposed it. I understand why she is concerned with the committee’s response. Not having been involved at all in the committee proceedings, it is obviously difficult for me to understand why the committee came to that point, but I noted that Ms Dundas said in her presentation—I think that this is a very important point—that she certainly, and I think she meant the committee, would be very open to having another submission put to the committee from the same person applying for the right of reply.

I do not know what that is about, but it is telling me that there is the potential for this gentleman to follow up this process further with the committee. The problem with Mrs Dunne’s amendment is that she is sending exactly the same information back to the same committee and I cannot see how that would change the outcome.

It is true that any committee is a creature of this Assembly and that it is ultimately up to this Assembly to determine what action is taken, but the fact is that we are not able to understand what the submission was about because of the very nature of the investigation. Obviously, by allowing the submission to be made public, the right of reply would be had by default. So we are in a quite unusual situation. Normally, with a committee report we can read all the evidence and submissions and make up our own minds.

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