Legislative Council
(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 any financial credit or other status or that his or her privacy has been unreasonably invaded, and (b) requesting that his or her response be incorporated into Hansard. II. The President shall consider the submission as soon as practicable. III. The President shall give notice of the submission to the member who referred in the Council to the person who has made the submission. IV. In considering the submission, the President—
(a) may confer with the person who made the submission, (b) may confer with any member, but
(c) may not take any evidence, (d) may not judge the truth of any statement made in the Council or the submission. V. If the President is 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 not to grant the request to incorporate a response into Hansard, the President shall refuse the request and inform the person who made it of that decision. The President shall not be obliged to inform any person or the Council of the reasons for that decision. VI. Unless the President refuses the request on one or more of the grounds set out in paragraph V of this resolution, the President shall report to the Council that in the opinion of the President the response in terms agreed between the President and the person making the request should be incorporated into Hansard and the response shall thereupon be incorporated into Hansard. VII. A response—
(a) must be succinct and strictly relevant to the question in issue, (b) must not contain anything offensive in character, (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 paragraph I of this resolution, or (ii) unreasonably aggravating any adverse effect, injury or invasion of privacy suffered by any person, or (iii) unreasonably aggravating any situation or circumstance, and
(d) must not contain any matter the publication of which might prejudice—
(i) the investigation of any alleged criminal offence, (ii) the fair trial of any current or pending criminal proceedings, or (iii) any civil proceedings in any court or tribunal. VIII. In this resolution `person' includes a corporation of any type and an unincorporated association.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I rise to support the motion. On previous occasions the Democrats have expressed support for the notion of the ability to allow members of the public to respond when they feel that perhaps they have been wrongly represented or whatever within the Parliament. The first occasion I became involved in such an issue that I am aware of—and it was a significant issue—was in relation to the Christies Beach Women's Shelter. There are some members of this place who were in the Parliament at that time and who will remember that allegations were made in this place that were subsequently repeated outside. I think it was on the front page of the newspaper and on television and so on and made some very serious allegations about individuals.
I recall at the time being approached by some people about whom such allegations had been made and they protested most strongly their innocence. There really was no forum available to them to respond to the allegations. They found it incredibly difficult at the time to put their side of the story through the media. As it turned out, ultimately a select committee was established and I think it is fair to say that when the committee got to the end of its proceedings its members believed that the allegations that had been made were very difficult to substantiate, and yet, as I said, those allegations had been made in the Parliament. I think it is a very small step for this Parliament to at least give a right of reply to people. I note that protections are offered to Parliament itself as well in so far as that right of reply should not be frivolous, vexatious and so on, and it seems to me that the procedure the Attorney-General is proposing in his motion seems to be fair and reasonable. I note that within that process notice will be given to the member who made the original allegation. I am not sure what the intent of that is. It might be something worth exploring a little further because I would hate to think that in notifying that person that in some way that person is put in the position of trying to persuade the President that it is not a good idea that that right of reply is offered—although that is not the intention of the motion. It appears to me that the right of reply is something that is not really negotiated in any sense other than that the President satisfying himself or herself that it is not vexatious or frivolous—and there are a set of rules there—and that it would be reasonable to notify a member before the actual response is tabled. However, the way I read the motion it appears to me that very early in the process the member is being notified, and it then appears to me to be giving a right to place pressure on the President not to publish. I think that that should be a consideration of the President alone, particularly since this right of reply is quite limiting in terms of what can be included in it. I suppose it is fair to say with all the best intention in the world that from time to time any member of this place may wrongly represent somebody or at the very least the person about whom the accusation has been made feels that they have another side that deserves to be put. There is already a similar process in the Standing Orders of the Senate, and my advice, when I first looked at this issue a couple of years back, was that although it had been in place it was not being exercised. I think that that would be a fair indication that we will not be flooded with people demanding this right. But so far as individuals from time to time want it, I think it is reasonable that they should have it. With those few short remarks, I support the motion.