Page 570 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 12 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is significant that the sub judice convention is merely a convention; it is a self-imposed limitation on parliament's freedom. There is no question that, as a matter of law, parliament is free to do whatever it wants; but parliaments have traditionally been very cautious about infringing upon matters that are before courts or inquiries and commissions of inquiry. In relation to courts, it is a very strict self-imposed limitation. In relation to commissions of inquiry, there is that rather more sophisticated distinction that must be drawn between inquiries of a general policy nature, which may not infringe upon the parliament's freedom of action, and inquiries into specific facts and specific individuals, in relation to which Australian parliamentary practice in both the Senate and the House of Representatives shows that there is a clear tradition of the parliament holding its fire, suspending its judgment, until such time as an inquiry has reported. I say to Independent members: That is a very important matter that should be in your considerations.
Madam Speaker, where is the practice for ignoring the findings of fact that will be made by an independent tribunal and for rushing straight to judgment? I will tell you what the precedent is, Madam Speaker. In fact, I will read it for you:
"Let the jury consider their verdict," the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
"No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first - verdict afterwards."
"Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the sentence first!"
"Hold your tongue!" said the Queen, turning purple.
"I won't!" said Alice.
"Off with her head!" the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.
Madam Speaker, Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland seems to be the closest example we can find to the practice that the Leader of the Opposition is urging on the house today - sentence first, verdict later.
Madam Speaker, Mr Humphries expressed the wan hope that some day he may find himself in government. He was suggesting that then he may take certain views about practices that were established for ministerial conduct. One could look at the Alliance for practices of ministerial conduct, but I say to all members that you need to take the long view on this. This not only involves the question of when you should exercise parliament's clear right to pass a motion of want of confidence in a Minister but also involves the very important question of how we should respect an independent inquiry that has been set up under legislation passed by this Assembly to inquire into serious matters of public importance. We have established the inquiry. You were crowing a few minutes ago that you regarded as some sort of political victory by the Opposition the fact
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .