Page 2349 - Week 08 - Thursday, 7 June 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I stress these words "will consider litigation in court". Wanting to get to the bottom of the matter, I asked Mr Collaery for the evidence that a writ had been issued. He showed me something written that he claimed was from his department that said that writs had been issued on seven people. I said something to the effect of, "Yes, but where's the evidence?". He repeated that it was there in writing. I said, "I don't accept that as evidence". Mr Collaery then took me to a gentleman, who I believe is Peter Chivers, who said these words: "I have seen the writ". I thought, "Well, that is interesting; I had better go and check on the matter". As I have indicated, there has been no writ issued.
Since that time Mr Chivers has told me that he did not see a writ; he saw a letter. A letter is not a writ, and it is absolutely atrocious that I have been misled by Mr Chivers by his saying that he had seen a writ when he had not. If he or someone else has misled Mr Collaery, which is a possibility, then that also is an absolutely appalling situation.
After that, I was then told by Mr Jensen that the letter constituted something that was sub judice. In other words, it was a statement that the client would consider litigation in court. He said - and I do not doubt he would be prepared to stand up in this Assembly and make the point - that that matter was sub judice.
I quote Dr David Mitchell, who is a Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Laws, Master of Laws, Doctor of Philosophy, has a Diploma of International Law, a Diploma of Human Rights Law and is a senior constitutional lawyer. He advised me that the matter is not sub judice unless writs have actually been issued. The letter dated 2 February 1990 from Barry Albrighton's solicitors does not create a sub judice situation. One cannot stop a matter from being raised in parliament by issuing writs. If that were the case, then any citizen could inhibit the operation of parliament by issuing writs.
Mr Humphries: I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Stevenson is attempting to argue that there is no reason why the Assembly should not discuss this matter, and that has been, with respect, accepted by the Assembly, since no-one is preventing him from raising this matter of public importance. We are now debating the matter of public importance. I think, therefore, that arguments about whether it is sub judice or not are irrelevant to the matter under consideration.
MR SPEAKER: Yes; your time is running out, Mr Stevenson. Please get to the issue.
MR STEVENSON: A member of parliament is not prevented from raising a matter in parliament due to court proceedings. I make the point, Mr Speaker, that the - - -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .