Page 1740 - Week 05 - Thursday, 8 May 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Clause 101.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (12.36 am): I will be opposing this clause.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (12.36 am): This amendment, in regard to clause 101, is about repealing the defamation laws.
Mr Corbell: No, we are not on that.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Corbell has indicated he will be opposing clause 101. That is the question before the house—that clause 101 be agreed to.
DR FOSKEY: This amendment is with regard to clause 101—repealing the defamation laws. We are not on the same page. Again, we are seeing an attempt ostensibly aimed at simplifying things. Simplification is fine, but we need to consider the impact that some of these simplifications may have.
Yes, our civil law arrangements are technically equipped to handle defamation law suits, but does this mean the candidate would be liable to finance their own legal battle or have the time to devote to preparing their case in the heat of an election campaign? Elections are a heated environment where candidates are far more open to derogatory and slanderous actions. Elections create a heightened level of public exposure. The rules for election are separate from everyday life, so accordingly the rules for defamation proceedings should be different.
The consequences of a misleading defamatory statement affect more than the individual’s reputation; they strike at the very heart of our democratic system. Independents and minor parties in particular are unlikely to have the money or the time to properly prosecute defamatory statements made against them for political purposes.
Making it easier to defame political candidates, which is what the government’s amendment will achieve, will further discourage ethical and highly qualified people putting their name forward to be MLAs. The defamation offence should remain in the Electoral Act and with the commission, as civil law is not really set up to deal with the mudslinging that is common to elections.
The commission deals with every aspect of electioneering and is better equipped to investigate and make a fair judgement on defamation claims. This could be seen as an example of the Electoral Commission trying to avoid its responsibility for ensuring that elections are fought transparently and that allegations made against parties and individuals have a factual basis.
This reticence to exercise their power is being felt across jurisdictions and is leading to a decline in political standards which can only further alienate voters, especially young voters who are cynical and suspicious of all political parties and politicians and have not learnt to differentiate between the different standards and principles of the various political parties.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .