Citizens Right of Reply Bill

Legislative Council 18 November 1998
CITIZENS' RIGHT OF REPLY BILL

The Hon. T.G. CAMERON obtained leave and introduced a Bill for an Act to provide a right of reply to persons adversely referred to during the proceedings of a House of Parliament. Read a first time.

The Hon. T.G. CAMERON: I move:
That this Bill be now read a second time.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: The Democrats support this Bill very strongly. In fact, over a number of years, we have publicly advocated such a move. We were well aware that the Senate had adopted the same practice and that it worked extremely well. I well remember only a few years after I came into this place parliamentary privilege being used in a way which did a great deal of harm to some individuals associated with the Christies Beach Women's Shelter. A report was tabled in this place which attracted parliamentary privilege. A number of things were said about people involved in that shelter.
I was approached by people involved with the shelter, as were other people, who said that it was outrageous and who then stated their case to me. I could go through all the ins and outs of what happened in that particular issue. Ultimately a select committee was established which, interestingly, could not find any evidence to support most of the allegations that were made, and certainly none of the serious allegations. Some very minor allegations were made in relation to bookkeeping which would have been true of almost any organisation in South Australia.
The Hon. T.G. Cameron interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: If you want me to really start up on thatóbut I will not. Nevertheless, one of the funda-mentally important things that happened was that extremely serious allegations were made which have gone permanently on the record of this State and there was no method by which a formal response might be made. It is important, of course, that such a response should not then set about slandering anyone else, but the notion that at least people should have a response is reasonable. In relation to the Christies Beach Women's Shelter, I would say that that would not have been enough but it certainly would have been a start.
Parliamentary privilege is important. Every member in this place has needed it from time to time and it needs to be used with great discretion. Occasionally people step over the boundaries of due discretion but we will have to accept that. One would hope that there would be some internal rigour within political Parties and within the Parliament itself that a person who consistently abused that privilege would be brought into line, but the privilege must remain. It does seem to me that at the very minimum we can offer people the right to respond and to have such a response recorded within the official record of the Parliament itself. Of course, there needs to be appropriate vetting to ensure that no-one is slandered.
There was a more recent example of an abuse of this place on Wednesday 28 October. The Hon. Angus Redford decided that he would use his grievance debate to hop into a few people for what really looked like political purposes. He then trotted off and supplied his remarks to the Border Watch. I received a telephone call from one of the people the honour-able member decided to have a go at. He was most aggrieved and said, `What can I do about it?' I said, `Hopefully, in the not too distant future, you will be able to respond by inform-ing the Parliament of what you believe to be the truth of the matter.' At this stage that person does not have that capacity because it is not available. I am prepared to offeró
The Hon. T.G. Cameron: Can we make the Bill retro-spective?
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: That might be worth con-sidering. Indeed, there may be a number of peopleó
The Hon. A.J. Redford interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Quite happily. The person in question was Anthony Beck, who stood for the Federal seat of Barker in the last election. It is worth noting that Mr Beck was running against a Liberal Party member. The Hon. Angus Redford appears to have used his five minutes largely to make an attack on anyone who should run against the Liberal Party. Mr Beck was concerned not only about what was said of him but also that the Hon. Mr Redford effectively identi-fied another individual and said things about him as well. In his letter to me, Mr Beck named the person. I will not give the name but Mr Beck said that the very fact that the Hon. Angus Redford had identified a man who was in a wheelchair was sufficient in a community such as Mount Gambier to identify the person.
Mr Beck then made some comments about what his involvement in politics may or may not be. I think that Mr Beck was also concerned that an allegation was made in this place, and therefore under privilege, that he was making a desperate grab for power on Rory McEwen's behalf.
The Hon. A.J. Redford interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Why did you not go outside this place and say that rather than saying it in here? Mr Beck said that the idea is a good one and that it is pleasing to note that the Hon. Angus Redford recognises that Rory McEwen has much talked about leadership qualities. Anthony Beck also tells me in his letter that he contacted the Director of the Liberal Party (Mr Jim Bonner) and had a number of tele-phone conversations re preferences prior to the Federal election in 1998. He said:
He [Mr Bonner] was fishing for preferences for both Houses but particularly the Senate and wanted to know what would determine what I would recommend to my supporters. My reply was that it depended on what type of dirty tricks campaign they would run at the last minute. In addition, Mr Bonner asked why people like me were not working within the Liberal Party. I mentioned that the dry economic policies of the Premier (John Olsen) were a serious problem, that is, the sale of ETSA, the Premier's protection of a Minister who was promoting an unsustainable water policy for the South-East of South Australia. At a Federal leveló
The Hon. A.J. Redford interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: You just interject too soon. The letter continues:
At a Federal level, a Liberal Party promoting a GST in a format which would have serious implications for low income farmers and small business in the Barker electorate. Another issue of concern, to the many Liberal supporters in the South-East I had spoken to, was the method of preselection used by the Liberal Party. It was seriously flawed; this I passed on to Mr Bonner. On 12 November 1998 when I checked with Bonner the facts surrounding the `grab for power' allegations, he, Mr Bonner, said that the Liberal Party was now looking at this preselection process. In addition, he said he would speak to Hon. Angus Redford regarding his speech and my concerns about it.
Monday afternoon, November 16, I again asked the Hon. Angus Redford to withdraw the offensive and inaccurate points in his speech, as I believed he was misleading the Legislative Council. He declines, and stands by his words.
Mr Beck said:
I would be most grateful if you could bring this grievance to the attention of the Legislative Council, and when the matter is cleared up I will notify the Border Watch to set the public record straight.
At the end of the day, it is not world shattering, but to him it was important. All he was asking was that he have the ability to respond to those things that were said in this place about him. On this particular occasion I have done it by incorporating it in the Hansard record in this way, but I think that the sort of model being put forward by the Hon. Mr Cameron would not make that necessary in the future.

TOP

[Home]    [Head Office]    [SA Branches]    [What's Hot in SA]    [Mike Elliott]    [Sandra Kanck]    [Ian Gilfillan]   [SA Senators]   [SA Parliament]    [Contact Us]    [News Releases]    [National Site]    [Election]    [Support Us]    [Links]     [Newsletter]     [Browse by Subject]