Page 4015 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 24 October 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Berry: That is not what he is talking about. Would you just rule on it?
MR SPEAKER: Resume your chair, please, Mr Berry. I have ruled on it.
Mr Berry: I did not hear the ruling, sir.
MR SPEAKER: If you had not been talking at the time you would have heard. Please proceed, Mr Collaery.
Mr Berry: I raise a point of order, on the issue of relevance.
MR SPEAKER: Yes, I have given you an indication. I believe it is relevant, but I have asked Mr Collaery to draw his points together. Please proceed, Mr Collaery.
MR COLLAERY: His Honour went on to say:
The problem relates to the isolation of judges from influence by government, whether the influence be by generosity or parsimony.
In the July edition of the Australian Law Journal there was an article on the same point by Mr Justice McLelland. The effect of our voting on this motion today, whilst the matter is before the court, would be for the legislature to express an opinion. That could be interpreted as a direction to the court, as a view of the legislature as to how the judges should bring down their decision. Members will well recall that no such motion was put during the vexed debate on the Canberra Times site. No-one sought to put a motion to prejudge the court's decision. Mr Moore well appreciates that because that was discussed and discarded.
This motion has the effect of expressing, by the legislature, an opinion on a matter which is currently sub judice, before the Supreme Court of the ACT. As Attorney-General, the first law officer who is responsible for our relationships with the ACT Supreme Court, I say very strongly that this motion should not proceed to a vote. I am not denying the debate at all; the debate is quite okay. Let it not proceed to a vote at this stage.
Mr Speaker, I trust that members will look at those references that I have given and understand the necessity to act prudently in this situation. The views of the parties are well known; they are on the record. Nothing new will arise out of this, except the gamesmanship of putting the legislature against the Supreme Court while the matter is before the court. Indeed, I suspect that Mr Moore should clarify whether he is a litigant in that matter. We need to know that, and we should be told. He well knows the rules in the green book about litigants prospering or prejudicing their claims by use of this Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .