 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
Debate on the Local Government
package of Bills. i.e.
This page covers only the Democrats amendment to give the public a "Right of Reply" at council meetings. For an index of other topics covered in the Local Government Bills, see the Democrats Local Government page, or the 1999 Budget Session Index |
New clause 94A.
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I move: Page 80, after line 6—Insert: Right of reply 94A. (1) A person who has been referred to during the proceedings at a meeting of a council or council committee by name, or in another way so as to be readily identified, may make a submission in writing to the council or council committee—(a) claiming that he or she has been adversely affected in reputation or in respect of dealings or associations with others, or injured in profession, occupation or trade or in the holding of an office, or in respect of financial credit or other status, or that his or her privacy has been unreasonably invaded; and (b) requesting that he or she be permitted to make a response that is incorporated into the minutes of the proceedings of the council or council committee (as the case may be). (2) Unless otherwise determined by the council or council committee, a submission under subsection (1) will be considered by the council or council committee on a confidential basis under Part 3. (3) In considering a submission under subsection (1), the council or council committee—
(a) may appoint a member of the council or council committee to confer with the person who made the submission and then to report back to the council or council committee; and (b) may confer with the person who made the reference to which the submission relates; but (c) may not judge the truth of any statement made by a member of the council or council committee. (4) Subject to subsection (5), the council or council committee may then, if it considers it appropriate and equitable to do so, resolve that a response be incorporated into the minutes of the proceedings of the council or council committee (as the case may be). (5) A response incorporated into minutes under subsection (4)—
(a) must be succinct and strictly relevant to the question in issue; and (b) must not contain anything offensive in character; and (c) must not contain any matter the publication of which would have the effect of—
(i) unreasonably adversely affecting or injuring a person, or unreasonably invading a person's privacy, in the manner referred to in subsection (1)(a); or (ii) unreasonably aggravating any situation or circumstance; and (d) must not contain any matter the publication of which might prejudice—
(i) the investigation of an alleged criminal offence; or (ii) the fair trial of any current or pending criminal proceedings; or (iii) the conduct of any civil proceedings in a court or tribunal. (6) A council or council committee may at any time cease to consider a submission under this section if of the opinion that—
(a) the submission is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or offensive in character; or (b) the submission is not made in good faith; or (c) there is some other good reason why not to grant a request to incorporate a response in relation to the matter into the minutes of the proceedings of the council or council committee. This amendment provides a right of reply to a person who has been referred to during the proceedings of a meeting of a council or council committee by name or in another way so as to be readily identified and who claims that he or she has been adversely affected in reputation or in respect of dealings or associations with others or injured in a profession, occupation or trade. As I argued earlier, this arises from the Democrats' proposal to balance the fact that councils are immune from defamation actions and, were this clause not included in the Bill and eventually in the Act, an allegedly defamed or a seriously impugned person would have virtually no redress. This measure is based on the procedure that is in place in the Legislative Council. The Hon. T.G. ROBERTS: The Opposition opposes the new clause. The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: The Government supports the amendment. I note that it is almost identical to what Parliament has accepted in terms of Standing Orders for the Legislative Council.
Amendment carried; new clause inserted.
Six days later, on 4 August 1999, the House of Assembly rejected this amendment. The matter came back before the Legislative Council the following day.
Legislative Council
5 August 1999
The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: I move:
That the Legislative Council insist on its amendments Nos 46, 47, 66, 67, 76 and 83.
They relate to criminal penalties from general duties of members and relating amendments to closing of meetings, voting rights of presiding members and also to the right of reply.
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I must comment that I deeply regret the removal of the right of reply aspect, especially as this Chamber had led the way in a very effective reform, and it appeared as if it had the support of a majority in this Parliament to carry it. I think it is a backward step and I feel I must make that observation at this Committee stage.
The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: In terms of this Bill and the consideration between Houses, compromises and variations to earlier opinions have been required by a number of people. I do not think it is any cause for chest beating.
Motion negatived.
The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: I move:
That the consequential amendments made by the House of Assembly be agreed to.
Motion carried.
See Ian Gilfillan's News Release on this issue: 22 July 1999
