Legislative Council Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1) 54 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Citizen's Right of Reply Citizen's Right of Reply Citizen's Right of Reply Citizen's Right of Reply The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council Treasurer The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (16:13): I move: That, during the present session, the council make available to any person who believes that he or she has been adversely referred to during proceedings of the Legislative Council the following procedure for seeking to have a response incorporated into Hansard— 1.	Any person who has been referred to in the Legislative Council by name, or in another way so as to be readily identified, may make a submission in writing to the President— (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. 2.	The President shall consider the submission as soon as practicable. 3.	The President shall reject any submission that is not made within a reasonable time. 4.	If the President has not rejected the submission under clause 3, the President shall give notice of the submission to the member who referred in the council to the person who has made the submission. 5.	In considering the submission, the President— (a)	may confer with the person who made the submission; (b)	may confer with any member; (c)	must confer with the member who referred in the council to the person who has made the submission and provide to that member a copy of any proposed response at least one clear sitting day prior to the publication of the response; but (d)	may not take any evidence; (e)	may not judge the truth of any statement made in the council or the submission. 6.	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)	the submission has not been made within a reasonable time; or (d)	the submission misrepresents the statements made by the member; or (e)	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 the President’s decision. 7.	The President shall not be obliged to inform the council or any person of the reasons for any decision made pursuant to this resolution. The President’s decision shall be final and no debate, reflection or vote shall be permitted in relation to the President’s decision. 8.	Unless the President refuses the request on one or more of the grounds set out in paragraph 5 of this resolution, the President shall report to the council that in the President’s opinion the response in terms agreed between him and the person making the request should be incorporated into Hansard and the response shall thereupon be incorporated into Hansard. 9.	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 1 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. 10.	In this resolution— (a)	'person' includes a corporation of any type and an unincorporated association; (b)	'member' includes a former member of the Legislative Council. In speaking to this motion, as members will know from the brief discussions I have had with members outside the chamber, this is a traditional motion that has been moved for a number of years now. It provides the opportunity for a citizen's right of reply for those citizens who might feel aggrieved at something that one of us may have said in the chamber. This outlines an opportunity and a process that a citizen can follow in terms of, potentially at the end of that process, having their objection approved and tabled in this house. I do not believe, other than for perhaps some of the new members, that I need to speak at any greater length than that. As I said, it is in exactly the same format as has been moved previously; it has been supported by all members on all previous occasions. I do not ever recall a debate where someone has opposed the motion, and I therefore urge members to support the motion before us. The Hon. K.J. MAHER Legislative Council Leader of the Opposition The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (16:15): I second the motion and note that this is a motion we routinely move to allow anyone who thinks they have been aggrieved to have a process in which to redress that. I note that on some occasions some in this chamber do happen to say things under parliamentary privilege about which people do feel aggrieved, so it is important that we have this motion on the books. The Hon. M.C. PARNELL Legislative Council The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (16:15): I also support the motion and I do not propose to speak at any great length because, as the Leader of the Government has said, it is a fairly regular motion introduced at the start of sittings, so I think there is no doubt that it will pass. I want to make a few observations in relation to the motion. The first, perhaps, has been made already, but it is a motion that has rarely been used. I have been here 12 years; I can recall two or three times where a member of the public has taken advantage of this motion, written to the President and sought a right of reply in Hansard. So, it is not something that will occupy a great deal of our time. In terms of the test to be applied by yourself as President, I note that the words include whether a person claims to have been adversely affected in reputation or in respect of dealings or associations with others. It is an interesting test. I guess in some ways the test that the civil courts might apply in a case for defamation comes to mind, where certainly the concept of diminished reputation applies there. Of course, the big test in a court case, in a defamation case, is that what the person said was wrong, that it was false. It is a hurdle that has to be overcome before proceedings go too far. Interestingly, the motion requires that in considering a submission from a person the President may not take any evidence—and I think that makes sense: we are not going to turn this chamber into a courtroom and bring in people to argue the pros and cons of what the honourable member might have said or meant—but also that the President may not judge the truth of any statement made in the council or in the submission made to the President. I guess common sense has always prevailed (and I hope it will prevail), that if what a person says in this this chamber is factually correct, if it is true, it may harm a person's reputation, and that may be deserved. I urge the President to use this facility judiciously and also preferentially towards individuals who might contact the President in relation to a right of reply. The reason I say that is that the definition of 'person' does include corporations. I am sure I am not Robinson Crusoe in having, in this place, named and shamed corporations for things they have done in the community. The famous case of Marathon Resources springs to mind. I think I described it as a cowboy operation that was trashing the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary. Did that affect its reputation? I hope it did: that was the intention. Corporations are covered by this. I am not aware of any corporation ever having written to the President saying that they feel their reputation was harmed by something that was said by a member of this place. I do not want to be accused of nitpicking, because the practical reality is that this facility is rarely used. I am only aware of it ever having been used in relation to individuals who were named, rather than corporations, and I hope and expect that will continue to be the case. With those observations, the Greens will support the motion. Motion carried.