Page 4016 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 24 October 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I trust that Mr Moore will look very carefully at the sub judice rules. But as Attorney-General I make it quite clear to the Assembly that I oppose us as a legislature giving a directive, in effect, to the Supreme Court about the opinion of this Assembly on a matter which is currently subject to litigation before the courts. There are only a few weeks to go, Mr Speaker, and I think this Opposition should concentrate more in that time, if it wants to, on assisting materially and intellectually, if it has the ability, the school groups rather than try gamesmanship here day after day on this issue to see whether it can get some division in the Government.
MR CONNOLLY (10.56): Mr Speaker, I wish to enter into this debate only briefly, to put down the arrant nonsense that we have just heard, namely, that this Assembly ought not to debate or vote on this issue because there has been some indication that a group of citizens may wish to bring the matter before the court. No writ has been issued; no date has been set for trial. The sub judice convention is quite clearly stated in the green book, at page 491, as:
Matters of a civil nature shall not be referred to from the time the case is set down for trial or otherwise brought before the court, not from the time a writ is issued.
It says that we can debate a matter even after a writ has been issued, but no writ has been issued. Mr Collaery's view of the sub judice convention makes government unworkable. He is saying that, whenever any community group says, "We may wish to litigate a matter", the parliament cannot express a view on it. It is an absurd ruling on the sub judice convention. It is merely an attempt, Mr Speaker, to avoid having to vote on this issue, because the Residents Rally, quite properly, is scared to show its true colours.
MR MOORE (10.57): Mr Speaker, I must say that that was a most extraordinary speech of the Deputy Chief Minister. It was a speech of somebody who feels caught in the middle, and quite rightly he should feel caught in the middle. The debate and motion state that the primary school should remain open to continue to provide the high quality of education. There is no doubt that that high quality of education has been provided at Weetangera, and it ought to have the opportunity to continue.
I would like to take a couple of points from the notions that Mr Collaery put. He started by saying that the only one who has parted from Residents Rally policy is Michael Moore. When I look around to the gallery I see Dr Kinloch sitting with members of the Weetangera school community. On this issue I have said on a number of occasions publicly that I admire the stance that Dr Kinloch has taken. Clearly, he had before him the same information as the rest of the Government. He made the hardest decision of all, to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .