Cashman v Hinchliffe [2003] QCA 161

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Cashman v Hinchliffe [2003] QCA 161 PARTIES: CAROL RAE CASHMAN (plaintiff/respondent) v DAVID HINCHLIFFE (defendant/appellant) FILE NO/S: Appeal No 10150 of 2002 SC No 8335 of 1999 DIVISION: Court of Appeal PROCEEDING: General Civil Appeal ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane DELIVERED ON: 17 April 2003 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 17 March 2003 JUDGES: Williams and Jerrard JJA, and White J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Jerrard JA and White J concurring as to the orders made, Williams JA dissenting in part ORDER: 1. Allow the appeal 2. Order that sub-paragraphs 7(f), (g) and (j) of the further amended statement of claim be struck out 3. Set aside the orders made 5 November 2002 4. The respondent to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal and of both applications below to be assessed CATCHWORDS: DEFAMATION – STATEMENTS AMOUNTING TO DEFAMATION – REFERENCE TO PLAINTIFF – IDENTIFICATION DEFAMATION – ACTIONS FOR DEFAMATION – PLEADING – QUEENSLAND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PRACTICE UNDER RULES OF COURT – PLEADING – STATEMENT OF CLAIM – where respondent claimed imputations that she “had no regard for law” and that she was “behind” fraudulent petitions – whether these imputations capable of being defamatory – whether claims so imprecise as to prejudice appellant in his defence Whether imputations claimed disclose no reasonable cause of action – whether claims have a tendency to prejudice or delay -- 1 of 15 -- 2 the fair trial of the proceedings Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 171, r 166(4) McCormick v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 485, considered Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 519, considered Robinson v Laws [2001] QCA 122; [2003] 1 Qd R 81, followed Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158, considered COUNSEL: D R Cooper SC, with M P Amerena, for the appellant P Favell, with R J Anderson, for the respondent SOLICITORS: King and Company for the appellant F G Forde Knapp & Marshall for the respondent [1] WILLIAMS JA: The background facts relevant to the resolution of the issues raised by this appeal are set out in the reasons for judgment of White J which I have had the advantage of reading. The appellant, the defendant in the defamation action, applied to have certain paragraphs in the respondent-plaintiff’s statement of claim struck out. He was successful on some issues, but failed to have three imputations struck out. This appeal is essentially from the order refusing to strike out those three imputations. [2] The first imputation in question is that the words used by the respondent (relevantly set out in the reasons of White J) “meant and/or were understood to mean . . . (f) the Plaintiff has a disregard for the law.” As White J has pointed out the words used by the appellant were “sufficiently addressed to the respondent either personally or as an identifiable member of the Liberal Party Brisbane City Council Opposition”. The real issue is whether, as the appellant submits, there is such a want of precision in the imputation that the appellant does not know the case he has to meet. The appellant used the words “regard for law” directed towards the respondent and as White J has said the “imputation pleaded is a precise enough reflection of those words”. [3] But the complaint made is that the imputation could “convey to the hearer a variety of meanings”. That, in my view, is irrelevant in this particular context. No one would doubt that describing a person A as a “criminal” was capable of being defamatory. It would not be necessary for A in those circumstances to particularise any crime in his statement of claim. It would not matter that members of the public on hearing the words published might believe that A had committed different crimes. The general allegation of criminality would enable the matter to go the jury; a judge would not be entitled to withdraw the case from the jury simply because the words were not capable of being understood as imputing a particular crime. [4] Here the court is concerned with a plaintiff who is a councillor in the Brisbane City Council, a local authority with extensive law-making and law enforcement powers. To imply that a person in that position had “a disregard for -- 2 of 15 -- 3 the law” is, in my view, capable of being defamatory. If there is any want of precision that is a consequence of the actual words used by the appellant. Hunt CJ at CL in Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at 165, adopting words used by Holroyd Pearce LJ in Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd; Rubber Improvement Ltd [1963] 1 QB 340 at 374, said; “There is a wide degree of latitude given to the capacity of the matter complained of to convey particular imputations where the words published are imprecise, ambiguous, loose, fanciful or unusual.” Here the words used by the appellant – “regard for law” – could be described as imprecise or loose, but they are capable, in the context, of conveying the imputation that the respondent Councillor had “a disregard for the law”. [5] I am not persuaded that the imputation “the Plaintiff has a disregard for the law” is in the context of this case so imprecise as would embarrass the appellant in defending it. In my view the learned judge at first instance was correct in not striking out this imputation. [6] Imputations (g) and (j) can be considered together. The first alleges that the “Plaintiff was behind a petition alleged to have been compiled and/or signed fraudulently” and the second alleges that the “Plaintiff was behind and/or created a petition compiled of rubber stamp signatures.” [7] In my view the use of the term “behind” in each of those imputations results in them, in the context of the words used by the appellant, being so imprecise as to prejudice the appellant in his defence. What does “behind” mean in 7(g)? Does it mean that the respondent actively procured fraudulent signatures on the petition, or does it mean that the respondent presented to the Council a petition knowing that it had been signed fraudulently? There are undoubtedly other possible meanings for the imputation, but it is sufficient for present purposes to identify those two. The appellant needs to know precisely what it is that the respondent is alleging to be defamatory and that has not been done. [8] The imputation in 7(j) suffers from the same defect. [9] It follows that each should be struck out, although it is obvious from what I have said that it is quite possible that an amendment to the statement of claim would clarify the relevant imputation. [10] Before leaving imputations (g) and (j) I should deal with the passages in Robinson v Laws [2003] 1Qd 181 at 88 and 93 referred to White J. In my respectful view those passages do not support the proposition that “it is embarrassing to a defendant to be confronted with alternatives which are not offered as true alternatives.” I know of no authority, and Robinson v Laws is certainly not one, which requires alternative imputations in a plaintiff’s statement of claim to be “true alternatives”. Given that each imputation constitutes a separate cause of action it is, in my view, permissible for a plaintiff to plead a series of imputations, having slightly different nuances, though there be some overlapping. The court in Robinson v Laws was not concerned with a statement of claim, but with a defence which raised alternative meanings for the published words to the meanings alleged in the statement of claim. The defendant there was alleging that the words used were not defamatory because they carried a meaning different to that alleged by the plaintiff. In that context the court held that the alternative meaning alleged by the -- 3 of 15 -- 4 defendant had to be a “true alternative” otherwise the defendant’s meanings would not exclude the plaintiff’s, and so would not constitute truly a denial of the plaintiff’s allegation. That, of course, is not the situation here. [11] I agree with the reasons of White J for concluding that there is no basis for striking out paragraph 7(k). [12] Subject to what I have said herein I agree with the reasons of White J. [13] The orders which I would make are; 1. Allow the appeal; 2. Order that subparagraphs 7(g) and (j) of the further amended statement of claim be struck out; 3. Set aside the orders made 5 November 2002 ; 4. Order that the respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal and of both applications below to be assessed. [14] JERRARD JA: In this matter I have had the considerable advantage of having read the reasons for judgment in draft of Williams JA and White J. While I respect the argument advanced by Williams JA regarding the plaintiff’s pleading 7(f), I respectfully agree with the judgment of White J on this matter. The plaintiff’s pleading in 7(f), that the words spoken by the defendant meant that “the Plaintiff has a disregard for the law”, could be equally a description of the plaintiff:
being a persistent minor offender against public order laws; or
persistently engaging in petty dishonesty; or
living by, and on, illegal means; or (perhaps)
being sufficiently and personally acquainted with so large a number of judges, barristers, and solicitors, as to regard the achievement of justice as an unlikely outcome from cumbersome and unnecessarily expensive procedures; or
being of generally good character, but willing enough to act unlawfully when that presents advantage and little risk; or
being personally law abiding, but willing to accept assistance from those she knows to be breaking the law in what they are doing to assist. [15] These are just some possible meanings. The defendant’s rhetorical question, “what regard for the law would they have?” seems to have been a step in an argument. It was asked with respect to the described conduct of the team leader concerning the Council officer, and what that conduct demonstrated about team members who supported that leader. The rhetorical question in context supplied the answer that membership of that team showed a willingness to acquiesce in the conduct by its leader in contempt of the rights, including employment rights, of Council officers. The next step in the argument appears to be that those team members may have -- 4 of 15 -- 5 acquiesced in the use by others of forgery and fraudulent practices in obtaining signatures on the petition. [16] The defendant’s speech implied that the answer to the rhetorical question explained whatever degree of wrong doing was involved by those presenting the petitions which in fact contained forged signatures. I do not see that the rhetorical question meant or can be understood to mean any more than that. The answer may be summarised as that it demonstrated that team members had a willingness in public office to accept the political benefits flowing from discreditable, or unlawful, conduct by others. That involved the possibility, but not the necessity, of knowing participation in the presentation of a petition containing forged signatures. This seems different from all but the last two of the more obvious meanings of “a disregard for the law”. [17] It follows that I consider the pleading ignores the context in which the words were spoken, and from which a meaning can be distilled. The rhetorical question was just one step in the process of coming to that meaning. That meaning appears to be that the team members who presented the petition were possibly involved in the wrong doing, and should explain what had happened if they were not. [18] Accordingly, I think pleading 7(f) misses the point; but because of its variety of potential meanings and because the plaintiff’s counsel gave at least two different descriptions during argument of what he said it means, it does have a tendency to prejudice the fair trial of the proceeding, if left in its present form. [19] I agree with Williams JA and White J, that the pleadings in paragraphs 7(g) and (j) are so imprecise as to prejudice the appellant in his defence. The term “behind” is capable of conveying the meanings described by Williams JA in his judgment; and even the meaning that the plaintiff had been an innocent and active organiser of the petition, and had presented it to the Council without knowledge of the forgery of signatures actually forged, but in support of a cause the plaintiff passionately supported. [20] I agree with each of their Honours that there is no basis for striking out paragraph 7(k). Accordingly, I agree with the orders proposed by White J. [21] WHITE J: The appellant who is the defendant in defamation proceedings applied for orders, inter alia, that certain paragraphs in the respondent’s [plaintiff] further amended statement of claim be struck out pursuant to r 171 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules on the grounds that they either:
disclose no reasonable cause of action; or
have a tendency to prejudice or delay the fair trial of the proceedings. [22] Orders were made on 9 October 2002 striking out sub-paras 3(b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of the further amended statement of claim; that sub-para 3(a) be repleaded and that certain words in para 6 be struck out. Her Honour declined to order that sub-paras 7(f), (g), (j) and (k) be struck out. Her Honour ordered that there be no order as to costs of the application. On 5 November she refused leave to appeal the costs order made on 9 October with costs. -- 5 of 15 -- 6 [23] The appellant appeals Her Honour’s refusal to strike out sub-paras 7(f), (g), (j) and (k) of the further amended statement of claim, and the costs order made 9 October 2002 and the subsequent order made 5 November refusing leave to appeal that costs order. [24] The respondent is a Liberal councillor of the Brisbane City Council who has sued the appellant, an ALP councillor, for oral defamation. She alleges that on 24 August 1999 in the council chamber during proceedings the appellant said words which are set out in annexure A to the further amended statement of claim and annexed to these reasons. [25] On 31 August 1999 the respondent by her solicitor sought an apology and retraction from the appellant for the alleged defamation. After receipt of that letter the appellant said words which are set out in annexure B to the further amended statement of claim not presently relevant. [26] The appellant contends that the imputations alleged to arise from the words spoken on 24 August in sub-paras 7(f), (g), (j) and (k) cannot be referable to the respondent and are insufficiently precise and as such are likely to be productive of confusion either for a proper pleading of the defence or at the trial. It is presently the respondent’s intention that the tape recording of the words spoken will be played to the jury at the trial although the pleading does not make that clear but for pleading purposes it is to the words annexed to the further amended statement of claim that consideration must be given. [27] After some formal matters about the parties in para 1, para 2 of the further amended statement of claim pleads: “On 24 August 1999 at a meeting of the Brisbane City Council, the Defendant said the words contained in the transcript which appears at annexure A …”. Paragraphs 3 and 5 plead publication. Paragraph 4 pleads that the words “were of and concerning the Plaintiff.” [28] Paragraph 7 relevantly pleads: “7. The words referred to in paragraph 2 in their natural and ordinary meeting meant and/or were understood to mean:- (f) The Plaintiff has a disregard for the law; (g) The Plaintiff was behind a petition alleged to have been compiled and/or signed fraudulently; … (j) The Plaintiff was behind and/or created the petition compiled of rubber stamp signatures; (k) The Plaintiff made up names on a petition she presented to the Council; -- 6 of 15 -- 7 …”. [29] Mr D R Cooper SC who with Mr M Amarena appeared for the appellant, submitted that the alleged defamatory accusations cannot reasonably be understood as referring to the respondent. Mr Cooper submitted that there were two distinct groups in respect of whom the appellant’s accusations could be said to be directed but not the respondent. He identifies the groups as members of the Liberal Party who collected the signatures on the petition(s) and the Liberal Opposition Councillors. [30] The words are in my view sufficiently addressed to the respondent either personally or as an identifiable member of the Liberal Party Brisbane City Council Opposition. When the transcript is read through, omitting extraneous words, there is little difficulty, if any, in relating the words to the respondent. “These are the petitions that were presented by members of the Opposition in relation to waste vouchers. … They were all inspired by the Liberal Opposition. … You listen to this Carol, … greatly concerning to us that that that that some of the people who had been involved in circulating these petitions have done so fraudulently. … Oh, yes. Carol, ah fraud, what fraud, what fraud, what fraud to a team that’s led by someone who uses guns to get rid of council officers. (UI). What regard for law would they have? Well, Mr Chairperson their hands are written all over these documents. Their finger prints are on these petitions. …How did their names get on the Liberal petition? And who are the people who submitted those petitions? They were Councillor Watson, they were Councillor Clay, they were Councillor Magub and Cashman and Caltabiano and Knapp and Wilding and De Wit and Quirk and yes, Councillor O’Connell. Those petitions were signed fraudulently. … The time has come in this place for those people over there to stand up and please explain. Please explain how come you had phantom petitioners. … It was, it was based on fraud and every single one of you had presented these petitions so I want you to tell us in this place where did you get the petitions from? … You own a factory churning them out. You had a rubber stamp with signatures. So tell us all the members, who are the members, what branches, what branches, what Liberal Party branches did you have up there? Going door to door. How did you make up the ranks? …”. [31] Even considered as a class defamation the respondent is sufficiently identified. See the discussion in McCormick v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 485 per Hunt J at 487-488. [32] Turning then to the complaints about the want of precision in the pleaded imputations - the allegations must be pleaded with sufficient clarity to enable the appellant to plead his defence in conformity with the requirements of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules; to know the case he has to meet; and to avoid any confusion at the trial. The pleading rules for a defendant have altered appreciably since the former Rules of the Supreme Court. Rule 166(4) of the UCPR provides: “A party’s denial or non-admission of an allegation of fact must be accompanied by a direct explanation for the party’s belief that the allegation is untrue or cannot be admitted”. -- 7 of 15 -- 8 Paragraph 7(f) – “The Plaintiff has disregard for the law”. [33] The words actually used by the appellant are transcribed as being “What regard for law would they have?” The imputation pleaded is a precise enough reflection of those words but what is said to be conveyed by them? Confining the expression to the context it can convey to the hearer a variety of meanings. It most resembles a rhetorical question which invites the listener to provide the answer from what has been said. Is the speaker suggesting that, at best, the respondent was willing to accept whatever political benefits might flow from presenting petitions which contained signatures obtained by discreditable conduct in others; or was he inviting the listener to conclude that the respondent was more immediately involved in producing petitions which were signed fraudulently, that is, not by the persons whose signatures they purportedly bore, for political advantage, or do they bear some other scurrilous meaning? [34] Unless the precise imputation is pinned down the appellant will be embarrassed in defending it and it will be difficult to have a fair trial. Paragraph 7(g) – “The Plaintiff was behind a petition alleged to have been compiled and/or signed fraudulently”. [35] It is conceded by Mr Favell who appeared with Mr R Anderson for the respondent that there are, on its face, three possibilities in this imputation, namely, that the plaintiff was “behind” a petition which was compiled fraudulently, which was signed fraudulently or which was both compiled and signed fraudulently. In light of the obligations imposed by r 166(4) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules which require that a party’s denial of an allegation of fact be accompanied by a direct explanation for the party’s belief that the allegation is untrue, it is embarrassing to a defendant to be confronted with alternatives which are not offered as true alternatives, Robinson v Laws [2003] 1 Qd R 81 at 88 and 93 per de Jersey CJ. [36] The other difficulty with this sub-paragraph is what is meant when it is pleaded that the plaintiff was “behind” the petition. Does it mean the plaintiff was the inspiration for the petition or does it mean she incited the petition, or perhaps was merely a supporter of initiating the petition, or, again, merely associated with the petition? Other possibilities can be imagined and the context of the words spoken does not immediately confine the meaning even if it were appropriate, from a pleading perspective, to have regard to the context to discern that meaning. Throughout the transcript the appellant shifts from alleging the presentment of the petition(s) by the members of the opposition, to the petitions being “inspired” by the “Liberal Opposition” to a request to the respondent (and the other opposition councillors) to explain “How come you had phantom petitioners?”; to “you own a factory churning them out;” and “You had a rubber stamp with signatures”, so that any number of imputations might be teased out. [37] It is unlikely that an innocent presentation of a petition containing false signatures could be defamatory. The sting is clearly meant to be that with knowledge of some falseness in the petition the respondent supported or promoted the petition. A defendant should not be left guessing. The appellant needs to know what it is that the respondent is alleging, Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 519 per Brennan CJ and McHugh J at 531 and ff. -- 8 of 15 -- 9 Paragraph 7(j) – “The Plaintiff was behind and/or created a petition compiled of rubber stamp signatures”. [38] Again this imputation consists of two acts which are attributed to the respondent. It is clear that “behind” has and is meant to have a meaning different from “created” since it is used both conjunctively and disjunctively in the pleading. The same comments about para 7(g) apply here with respect to the need for precision so that the defendant can plead in accordance with his obligations. [39] What does the respondent say is the defamatory imputation conveyed by the expression “compiled of rubber stamp signatures”? The actual words used by the appellant were “You had a rubber stamp with signatures”. Neither the imputation nor the words are immediately defamatory. Taken alone the words spoken have a number of possible meanings. It could mean that the signatures of those who supported the petition had been put on a rubber stamp – a not unusual circumstance for people who are called upon to sign many documents – and the stamp was applied to the petition with the permission of the signatory. They might also mean that the signatory was indifferent as to the subject matter of the petition but merely wished to support the political position of the presenter of the petition in the council chamber – not obviously defamatory. Another meaning is gained by reading it together with the earlier expressions of fraud: “those petitions, those petitions, were signed fraudulently”. It is not beyond likelihood that the listener might conclude that this was a reference to fictitious names which were simply appended to the petition with the knowledge of the respondent who presented it. [40] The difficulty in responding as required by the rules and the potential for embarrassment at the trial in the ways which were discussed by Brennan CJ and McHugh J in Chakarvarti at 531-2 is apparent. Paragraph 7(k) – “The Plaintiff made up names on a petition she presented to the Council”. [41] The appellant no longer challenges the form of this imputation. The challenge is to the capacity of the appellant’s words to convey this imputation about the respondent. The words “phantom petitioners”, “petitions were signed fraudulently” and “fraudulently whipping up these petitions” are capable of conveying the imputation that they were made up. As I have indicated earlier there is sufficient in the transcript of the words said to have been used by the appellant to connect that imputation to the respondent. [42] In order to avoid the risk that the appellant will be embarrassed in giving effect to his pleading obligations and to give shape and focus to the trial and to avoid confusion, sub-paras 7(f), (g) and (j) of the further amended statement of claim should be struck out. Reasons [43] It was a ground of appeal that her Honour gave no or inadequate reasons for her decision in respect of the paragraphs which she did not order to be struck out. In light of the outcome of the appeal it is unnecessary to pursue this further. But briefly, her Honour received and adjourned to read the extensive written submissions. Her reasons were given ex tempore and were adequate to enable the appellant to mount his appeal. -- 9 of 15 -- 10 Costs [44] Since the appeal has been successful it is unnecessary to address the separate ground of appeal that her Honour erred in refusing leave to appeal her decision that there be no order as to costs. [45] The orders which I would make are: 1. Allow the appeal. 2. Order that sub-paragraphs 7(f), (g) and (j) of the further amended statement of claim be struck out. 3. Set aside the orders made 5 November 2002. 4. The respondent to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal and of both applications below to be assessed. -- 10 of 15 -- 11 [46] ANNEXURE “A” [47] PROCEEDINGS OF THE BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL [48] TUESDAY 24 AUGUST 1999 JM = Judy Magub LB = Les Bryant DH = David Hinchliffe GQ = Graham Quirk UI = Unintelligble DH The commercial operator’s cost per law were somewhere around the dollar fifty to two dollars. We well know that there were cases in Councillor Hayes area and other Wards where the operators er were charging up to sixty dollars extra er for the two take always for the transfer station of course they were blaming the Council. There’s also something I wanted to er comment about in relation to the petitions. Now there are about eighteen hundred people who signed these petitions. These are the petitions that were presented by members of the Opposition in relation to waste vouchers. As I’ve mentioned the department, okay the department. No no no no Mr Chairperson, Mr Chairperson, the petitions, Mr Chairperson. With the exception of the couple of Liberal people who may have dropped them off to Labor Ward Offices I think there may have been one on this side, they were all inspired by the Liberal Opposition. So, Mr Chairperson. It’s been very surprising and greatly concerning to us, you listed to this Carol, greatly concerning to us that that that that some of the people who had been involved in circulating these petitions have done so fraudulently. (UI) Have done so fraudulently Mr Chairperson. How do I know this? Oh yes. Carol, ah fraud, what fraud what fraud what fraud to a team that’s lead by someone who uses guns to get rid of Council officers. (UI) What regard for law would they have? Well Mr Chairperson their hands are all over these documents. Their fingerprints are on these petitions. Now we’ve written, we’ve written Mr Chairperson to each to each of the residents who signed the petition. We’ve written to each of the residents who signed the petition and this is the list his is the list Mr Chairperson to date since they started getting letters back from the Council about the voucher system in response to the petitions. This is the list of people who say they never signed a petition. They never saw a petition. There are people on this list who mow their own grass. Who knew nothing about the voucher system. How did their names get on the Liberal petition. And who are the people who submitted those petitions. They were Councillor Watson, they were Councillor Clay, they were Councillor Magub and Cashman and Caltabiano and Knapp and Wilding and De Wit and Quirk and yes Councillor O’Connell. Those petitions, those petitions, were signed fraudulently. There are a number of residents Mr Chairperson who contacted us. Wakey wakey June. Wakey Wakey get with it. Thirty four people in the last twenty four hours have phoned council in a state of great concern and agitation saying how did my name get on a petition. I had nothing to do with it. I don’t support it. I mow my own grass. I don’t I don’t use the voucher. That’s what these people were saying. So, I think Mr Chairperson the time has come in this place for those people over to stand up and please explain. Please explain how come you had phantom petitioners. All the huff and puff and bluff that you created earlier this year. It was, it was based on fraud and every single one of you had presented these petitions so I want you to -- 11 of 15 -- 12 tell us in this place where did youget the petitions from? Give us their names because we will follow up with them and we will put every one of these people in touch with the members of the Liberal Party who are out there fraudulently, fraudulently whipping up these petitions. You own a factory churning them out. You had a rubber stamp with signatures, so tell us all the members, who are the members, what branches, what branches what Liberal Party branches did you have out there. Going door to door. How did you make up the ranks because it’s not me who just wants to know. It’s not the other councillors who want to know. There are thirty four living breathing and concerned citizens who want to know how come their names were on a Liberal petition. It’s disgraceful and it’s fraud please explain. LB Order, order, order, order. Yes Councillor Magub. JM Thank you Mr Chairman. I wasn’t going to speak on this but I’m I’m just shocked at the allegations of Councillor Hinchliffe. He calls this a Liberal petition. He’s called it fraudulent. He’s accused Liberal Councillors of putting rubber stamped signatures onto it. He’s saying thirty four people have rung saying they don’t remember which is less than one percent of the two thousand anyway and he’s said that we4’ve taken to to branches to get signed. Well if we had’ve done that I can assure branch members wouldn’t have been ringing up saying they didn’t sign it so you’re way off there. Mr Chairman they are very very dangerous allegations being made by Councillor Hinchliffe. We get petitions through here in every council meeting and one of the things I think has surprised a lot of petitioners is they never get a reply. Council writes to the first petitioner only. Now why in this case has Councillor Hinchliffe written to nearly two thousand people, nearly two thousand people. Why is there a change of policy for this petition? I…I think you’re on very dangerous grounds Councillor Hinchliffe making accusations like that. Mr Chairman. LB Order, order, Councillor Caltabiano, Coumcillor Cashman, Councillor Cashman. Resume your seat Councillor Magub. Councillor Cashman I hereby warn you that unless you comply with my direction and cease to and obstruct and interrupt the improper conduct of this meeting I shall name you Councillor Cashman you may be suspended from the service of this council for a period of up to eight days. Furthermore, Councillor Cashman you are warned if you are suspended from the service of this Council you shall be excluded from the Council Chamber or any Chamber or public gallery and other meeting places for the period of that suspension. Councillor Caltabiabo I hereby warn you that unless you desist and er from obstructing and interrupting the proper conduct of this meeting I shall name you and furthermore Councillor Caltabiano you are …may be suspended from the service of the Council for a period of up to eight days. Furthermore Councillor Caltabiano you are warned that if you are suspended from the service of this Council, you shall be excluded from the Council Chamber, or any Chamber, public gallery and other meeting places for the period of that suspension. Yes Councillor Magub. JM I move to another part of this Item A now, um waste management comes under City Business and Councillor Bianci. So I have to ask and as I did in committee meeting, why is this waste disposal petition in the community policy committee report. Well I -- 12 of 15 -- 13 asked Councillor Hinchliffe in the committee meeting and the answer is quite surprising he tells me that he is the Chairman for Community Policy for Councillor or Pianci is the Chairman for City Business and they look after those responsibilities. Waste Management comes under City Business. However, Councillor Hinchliffe is the media spokesperson for Councillor Bianci’s Waste Management. He has, he has said he’s the media spokesperson for that area. Now it would be very interesting to know why Councillor Bianci isn’t able to speak to the media about waste disposal, waste management. Why? In fact when I brought it up in committee meeting Mr Chairman I was told that are a lot, quite a lot of areas that he, that Councillor Hinchliffe has taken over the spokesperson role for that don’t come under his (UI). So I have asked for a list, I have asked for a list of all those particular areas because if we’re going to be on this Community Policy Committee and we’re going to get things coming to this committee that don’t belong in this committee but we just happen to get them because Councillor Hinchliffe has been made media spokesman for that area then we need to have it spelled out very clearly. LB Order. So Mr Chairman when Councillor Hinchliffe replies I would like him to explain as he attempted to do at the committee this morning why he is media spokesperson for areas that come under another Chairman’s committee area and Mr Chairman I would also like I would also like Councillor Hinchliffe to explain the rubber stamping of signatures on that petition, rubber stamping of petitions. I would really like to see proof of this. I’d like to see proof that they’re fraudulent and I would like to know why there’s been a change of policy for this petition and almost two thousand people written to instead of the first petitioner only. LB Any further debate. GQ Ask Councillor Hinchliffe the question Mr Chairman and whether Councillor Hinchliffe would be prepared to refer this matter to the CJC please. LB Any further, any further debate. Councillor Hinchliffe do you wish to respond? DH Er Mr Chairperson with great delight. Taking the last question first and I am pleased that Councillor Quirk has asked that because it’s my intention to do so. Er what I regret however is that in the opportunity that I presented in this Chamber for members of the Opposition to rise and explain where they got the petition from. They chose not to do so. Not one of them ha said where they got the petition. But I have no doubt that Mr Chairperson when I, when I refer to this to the CJC each of them will be required to ask where they got the petition from. So I hope Mr Chairperson they are a lot more forthcoming to the CJC than they have been prepared to do so in this place. Okay. Than they have been prepared to do so in this place. That’s called trumping Councillor Quirk, trumping. Trumping yes Mr Chairperson. Come in spinner, come in spinner off to the CJC each of you and you can explain to them okay. You can explain to them. Councillor -- 13 of 15 -- 14 Magub, Councillor Magub, Councillor Magub, Councillor Magub, do you want an answer, do you want an answer. Councillor Magub wanted to know why it was that we were writing to all the petitioners. We’re following a practice that we have er, that we have involved. No no no. We’re following a practice that we have followed before. I can think for example when the Opposition tried to build up this fear campaign about cemeteries. About the Council wanting to wanting, to wanting to er handover…handover seventeen cemeteries and deaths to the Americans. You remember that. I remember Brian Hallinan was in this Chamber back then and that was one of the most deceitful ampaigns because it frightened to death lots of pensioners, a lot of elderly people were signing Liberal petitions generated by the Liberal factory for making petitions, the Liberal factory for making petitions. Look at them. Look at them. They’re all in a huddle. Here now who gave which branch member gave you the petitions, which branch member gave you the petitions. Yeah got your stories right okay because there’ll be an enquiry into it. There’ll be an enquiry into it. Yes Mr Chairperson, Councillor Magub we have done this before, we have done this before, we have done it today and we’ll do it again wherever there is a deceitful fraudulent petition campaign generated by the Liberal Party that stirs the local community and instils fear because everyone of those people we thought was cared about the petition wanted to know. They were concerned so we said we should inform them. Now I didn’t write to them Mr Chairperson the Manager of the Department wrote to them and it was the Manager of the Department who came in last night and said I can’t believe it. Did you realise that there are a lot of those signatures on those petitions that were presented to Council a very important process for Council a lot of those signatures were not correct they were from people who said that they had no idea of the issue. They were never involved and some of them mow their own grass. She was, she was aghast that her staff were being inundated by people who were outraged, concerned, anxious that there names had been entered on a petition so Councillor Quirk, I am happy you made a suggestion we will follow it up. We’ll follow it up but I would’ve liked to have heard from Councillor Magub where she got her petition from, likewise from June and Michael and Carol and Ray and Geraline and Jim and Margaret and Graham and Chris because they all had their fingerprints they all had their fingerprints on those petitions. Mr Chairperson Councillor Magub said she was confused about the responsibilities in relation to Waste. Now the other members of the committee can confirm that I said when she said why is this petition here, I said the Community and Economic Development division is responsible for the purchasing role in Waste. It’s in the Public Health Section of Community and Economic Development Division. She discovered that last week. I said I’m the purchaser in relation to it. Councillor Biacnci is responsible through City Business for the provider side of Waste, okay you with me. Okay. Me purchaser him provider. Okay. Share the responsibility of Waste. I said we had agreed however that as far as the media presentation on these issues was concerned Councillor Bianci was the spokesperson. I’ve always said that. The issue about the vouchers. Exactly, Mr Chairperson so just so the Councillor Magub can have it clearly in her mind purchaser is my committee my department. The operational side the provider side Councillor Bianci, Councillor Bianci is the spokesperson er in the media for all general issues in relation to Waste. As I asid, is it any wonder that Judy Magub is the Councillor for er photocopies. She’s always saying when we have a presentation can I have a photocopy of the overhead projection please because she doesn’t take notes. Now unless you put it in writing poor Judy can’t handle it. She can’t handle it. Poor Judy can’t handle it. Look why don’t you take notes, why don’t you take notes because if you’d taken notes you wouldn’ve had Hinchliffe purchaser, Bianci operations provider, Bianci spokesperson OK. Get it straight, get it straight Mr Chairperson, get it straight. Let me tell you. You wouldn’t know. You wouldn’t know. In a month of Sundays you wouldn’t know. No you wouldn’t. Mr -- 14 of 15 -- 15 Chairperson, the realities, Councillor Magub’s got it wrong so many times. I can’t be bothered, I can’t be bothered anymore Mr Chairperson. I can’t be bothered, she wont get any more information. Information is wasted on Councillor Magub. Save the information Judy, save the information. And save your voice for the CJC. ENDS -- 15 of 15 --