Page 129 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 8 December 2004
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
political resonances. He was also a witness and a government minister and had a role during the fires and accordingly there were very much—
MR SPEAKER: I am not going to allow discussion of that order, because I have taken the view that it is likely that that is a matter that could come to the courts by way of evidence. I would ask you to discontinue that line.
Mr Seselja: I wish to raise a point of order. The sub judice rule talks about a substantial danger of prejudice to judicial proceedings. We are talking about Supreme Court proceedings here. I refer to page 497 of House of Representatives Practice, where it says:
… there is a long line of authority from the courts which indicates that the courts and judges of the courts do not regard themselves as such delicate flowers that they are likely to be prejudiced in their decisions by a debate that goes on in this House.
I would ask you, Mr Speaker, to have regard for that—that it is very unlikely that the Supreme Court is going to be prejudiced by the statements of Mr Stefaniak.
MR STEFANIAK: Further to that point of order, all I am doing is quoting from an interview on the radio, which does not go into any evidence before the coroner; it is generic only.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Stefaniak, going to your last point, quotes on matters in this place can also offend the sub judice rule. I understand what you are saying, Mr Seselja—that the courts are not delicate flowers when it comes to considering these matters—but I am not going to allow a practice in this place where evidence likely to come before the courts is reviewed in this place before proceedings in the courts. It strikes me that that is a bad practice for us to get into; and I would ask Mr Stefaniak not to pursue that course.
MR STEFANIAK: On the point of order, we did that all last year. All I am saying is that the Attorney-General was a witness before the inquiry and gave evidence before the inquiry in his capacity as a government minister. That is an important point of the issue I am raising. I am not going into what evidence he gave; it is nothing to do with that. In fact, we have probably done that in the previous Assembly. I am not going into that; I am going into the general principle of what he has done—nothing more than that. I certainly cannot see how that is possibly sub judice, because I am not in any way going into the actual evidence.
MR SPEAKER: But you would agree, Mr Stefaniak, that that issue is likely to be raised in the courts?
MR STEFANIAK: I do not think we can get around the fact—
MR SPEAKER: Not that it matters whether you agree or not, because this is my decision.
MR STEFANIAK: The big problem in this case, in this matter, is that the attorney is also a witness; he has given evidence. I am not mentioning what the evidence is, but he has a role as Attorney, and that is a fundamental point. Because he is also a witness,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .