Legislative Assembly Privileges Committee

Person Referred To In The Legislative Assembly

Mr Andrew Higgs

October 2004

Ordered To Be Printed

By Authority

Government Printer For The State Of Victoria

No 93 — Session 2003 - 2004

Members Of The Committee

Hon R Cooper, MP Chair
Mr S Herbert, MP
Hon P Honeywood, MP
Ms J Lindell, MP
Mr T Lupton, MP
Mr N Maughan, MP
Mr V Perton, MP
Mr B Stensholt, MP

** Mr Nardella MP withdrew from the deliberations of the Committee

Staff

Mrs L Choat, Deputy Clerk, Legislative Assembly
Mr G Bourke, Clerk of Committees, Legislative Assembly

REPORT

On 31 March 2004 the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly received a submission from Mr Andrew Higgs seeking redress under Standing Order 227, relating to the protection of persons referred to in the Legislative Assembly.
The submission referred to a statement made by Mr Don Nardella, Member for Melton, on 4 March 2004 . The Speaker, having accepted the submission as a submission for the purposes of the Standing Order, referred it to the Committee on 24 May 2004 .
The Committee met in private session on 25 August 2004 and, in examining the submission, was guided by the requirements and tests laid down in Standing Order 227. These are attached as Appendix 1. As a consequence of this meeting, Mr Higgs was asked to provide more information and did so responding on 7 September 2004 .
The Committee again met in private on 15 September 2004 to consider Mr Higgs' redrafted submission. After scrutiny of Mr Higg's submission of 7 September 2004 , the Committee agree to a right of reply subject to some minor redrafting of the submission to ensure it complied with the guidelines.
On 4 October 2004 , Mr Higgs responded with a redrafted submission within the guidelines suggested by the Committee.
The Committee met again in private session on 13 October 2004 and resolved to accept the final submission dated 7 September 2004 .
The Committee draws attention to Standing Order 227(9) which requires that, in considering a submission under this Standing Order and reporting to the House, the Committee shall not consider or judge the truth of any statements made in the House or the submission.

Recommendation

That a response presented by Mr Higgs, in the terms specified at Appendix 2, and agreed to by Mr Higgs and the Committee, as included with this report, be incorporated in Hansard.

Committee Room

13 October 2004

Appendix 1

EXTRACT FROM STANDING ORDERS

(ADOPTED 4 March 2004 )

CITIZEN'S RIGHT OF REPLY

227 Citizen's right of reply procedure

(1) Where a person (the applicant) has been referred to in the House by name, or in such a way as to be readily identified, he or she can send a written submission (the submission) to the Speaker asking for an appropriate response to be incorporated into the parliamentary record.

(2) The submission must include a claim that, as a result of the reference:

(a) the applicant has been adversely affected:

(i) in reputation; or

(ii) in relation to dealings or associations with others; or

(b) the applicant has been injured in connection with his or her occupation, trade, office or financial credit; or

(3) The Speaker will refer the submission to the Privileges Committee (the Committee) if the Speaker is satisfied that:

(a) the subject of the submission is not so obviously trivial, or the submission so frivolous, vexatious or offensive in character, as to make it inappropriate that it be considered by the Committee; and

(b) that it is practicable for the Committee to consider the submission under this Standing Order.

(4) When a submission is referred, the secretary of the Committee will contact the applicant to draw his or her attention to the Committee's guidelines for preparing a brief draft statement in a correct form for incorporation.

(5) The Committee may decide not to consider a submission referred to it if:

(a) it considers that the subject of the submission is not sufficiently serious; or

(b) it considers that the submission is frivolous, vexatious or offensive in character; or

(c) the submission was received more than six months after the relevant comments were made in the House and the applicant has not shown exceptional circumstances to explain the delay --

(6) If the Committee decides to consider a submission, it may hold discussions with the applicant and any member who referred to the applicant in the House.

(7) The Committee will meet privately when considering a submission.

(8) The Committee will not publicly release a submission, or its proceedings in relation to a submission, but may present to the House minutes of its proceedings and all or part of a submission.

(9) In considering a submission and reporting to the House, the Committee will not consider or judge the truth of:

(a) any statements made in the House; or

(b) the submission.

(10) In its report to the House, the Committee may make either of the following recommendations:

(a) that no further action should be taken by the House in relation to the submission; or

(b) that a response by the applicant, set out in the report and agreed to by the applicant and the Committee, should be published by the House or incorporated in Hansard.

(11) The Committee will not make any other recommendations.

(12) A document presented to the House under paragraphs (8) or (10):

(a) in the case of a response by an applicant, will be succinct and strictly relevant to the questions in issue and will not contain anything offensive in character; and

(b) will not contain any matter, the publication of which would have the effect of unreasonably:

(i) adversely affecting or injuring a person; or

(ii) invading a person's privacy, in the manner referred to in paragraph (2); or

(iii) adding to or aggravating any such adverse effect, injury or invasion of privacy.

(13) The Committee may agree to guidelines and procedures relating to its consideration of submissions, providing they are consistent with this Standing Order.

Appendix 2 Response by Mr. Andrew Higgs

This statement has been prepared on the grounds that I consider my personal and professional reputation has been adversely affected by statements to the Legislative Assembly by the Member for Melton on Thursday the 4 th March 2004 .

Statement (by the Member for Melton):

“Is it true that Mr John Coghlin, a member of the Victorian Liberal Party policy assembly, is currently conducting a review of the Young Liberal Movement following serious allegations of misconduct and malfeasance?

Is it also true that a Mr Andrew Higgs, an employee of dumped Liberal Senator Tsebin Tchen, has just made a full and frank admission to the Liberal Party state president, Helen Kroger, in relation to fraud and forgery in the Victorian Liberal Movement?” [Hansard, p190]

My response:

On March 4, 2004 in the Legislative Assembly, the Member for Melton asserted that a review being conducted of the Young Liberal Movement was due to “ serious allegations of misconduct and malfeasance ”. He went on to assert that I have “ just made a full and frank admission to the Liberal Party state president, Helen Kroger, in relation to fraud and forgery in the Victorian Young liberal Movement?”

I have no doubts in my mind that the way in which these imputations were framed was to make it clear that I was involved in misconduct, malfeasance, fraud and forgery, and were made to deliberately ruin my reputation and standing in both the general community, and the Liberal Party. That belief was subsequently confirmed with not only friends, but business colleagues and associates who expressed their serious concern over such allegations.

This has had immediate and on going ramifications in the loss of business, confidence and associate trust in my commercial dealings and associations with others.

The statements made by the Member for Melton are without foundation. They are unsubstantiated and grossly inaccurate, and have adversely affected me in reputation and will continue so until my objection about such statements is tabled in the public record.

I value my reputation, and I am disgusted and dismayed that it has now been tarnished, by untrue politically based allegations by the Member for Melton. I have never been involved in misconduct, malfeasance, fraud and forgery, and I strongly resent being accused of such behaviour.

I make this statement in an attempt to redress the wrong that has been done to me, and seek its publication in Hansard.