Page 569 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 12 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Humphries: So why did he not stand down?
MR CONNOLLY: Senator Collins did not stand down. There are plenty of examples of where Ministers have not stood down. Madam Speaker, very similar statements of law and practice are provided in Australian Senate Practice. Senate practice may be in some ways more instructive here. Mr Humphries, in his tour de force on parliamentary history - and I can assure Mr Humphries that there were secret sessions of the House of Representatives that did parallel British practice - said that very rarely have motions been passed against Ministers in the lower house. Understandably, the two-party system would tend to preclude the passing of such motions. But the Senate is a different kettle of fish. It has been comparatively rare in the last 20 years for the government party to control the Senate. So the conduct of the Senate in relation to what it does with censures of Ministers, motions of want of confidence in Ministers and royal commissions may be more instructive. The practice is very similar. Page 252 of the fifth edition of Odgers's Australian Senate Practice, referring to the sub judice rule, states:
... the rule has application to other hearings, inquiries or investigations in which the rights of individuals or a community group ... may be prejudiced.
In fact, Australian Senate Practice refers to an incident in the House of Representatives but says that that is applicable to the Senate as well. It states:
On 18 September 1974 Speaker Cope ruled that discussion of any matter within the terms of reference of a royal commission would be an infringement of the sub judice rule. He stated that his ruling was supported by past rulings that it was not in order to discuss the proceedings of a royal commission or matters coming before it, and that the Chair would be failing in its duty if it allowed any discussion about matters which had been deliberately handed to the commission for investigation.
Madam Speaker, we deliberately refrained from taking a point of order on that ground, and I do not ask you to rule on that point, because we do not want to be seen to be using that rule to stifle debate. But I do say to Independent members that it is a very important issue of principle. A decision to refer a matter to a commission of inquiry under the Inquiries Act or to a royal commission is a serious decision, one not to be taken lightly; and proceedings of that inquiry are serious proceedings that this Assembly will no doubt look at with interest and, I have no doubt, will wish to debate when a decision is handed down. But today, for this house to pass a resolution which in its terms is directed at Mr Berry and is based upon certain findings of fact adverse to Mr Berry - an assumption that Mr Berry has misled this house - would, I say, and the Government says, seriously undermine the integrity of the inquiry process. It is for that reason that Australian parliaments have taken the view that they should be very restrained in the way they approach these matters.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .