Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2004) . . Page.. 1783 ..

There is simply no evidence that I have in any way acted outside the spirit, or the letter, of my government’s ministerial code of conduct or the accepted Westminster convention.

I would like to take a moment to reflect on another important notion, and that is to do with the sub judice convention. Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice describes the convention as follows:

The sub judice convention is a restriction on debate which the Senate imposes upon itself, whereby debate is avoided which could involve a substantial danger of prejudice to proceedings before a court, unless the Senate considers that there is an overriding requirement for the Senate to discuss a matter of public interest.

The practice distinguishes court procedures from administrative inquiries, such as royal commissions and other commissions of inquiry. It goes on to note that an inquest by a coroner is not in the same category as an executive-government appointed inquiry, and the sub judice principle as such does not apply.

Perhaps not surprisingly there has been an enormous amount of discussion in the public realm and in this place about the events of January 2003. That is to be expected, and it is warranted. But there is a judicial process running, even if not before a jury, and in my view we have a responsibility to be guarded and non-prejudicial in any comments we make on the issues being canvassed by the coroner. That is obviously not the view of the opposition. I have answered numerous questions, many of them recurring, that are directly related to evidence before the coroner.

I contrast that approach with the approach Labor took in opposition during the coronial inquest into the hospital implosion. Yes, we did move a want-of-confidence motion—but after the coroner’s report came down. It is true we moved a motion against the then attorney during the inquest, but that was on a peripheral issue not directly related to evidence given to the inquest. And I understand we asked one question during the last Assembly on an occupational health and safety issue associated with the implosion—one single question.

In a debate in the Assembly, it is not uncommon for positions to be adopted on political grounds. In such circumstances, conclusion sometimes precedes analysis. Protagonists in this setting sometimes criticise their opponents for developing analyses that rely on selective choice of facts or dubious assertions of fact. I have referred to some of those today. In the present set of circumstances, prejudice might arise in a number of different ways:

• First, Assembly debate may impact on evidence yet to be given before the inquest. With the passage of time, memories erode. Consciously, or unconsciously, it is sometimes observed that a recent report of an event may be substituted for one’s own actual memory. The debate may prejudice the coronial inquiry by degrading the quality of evidence to be taken by the coroner.

• Second, Assembly debate may influence witness behaviour. Anxiety about possible outcomes canvassed in the debate might create reticence about giving evidence,

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .