Page 144 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 8 December 2004
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
spoken about the subject matter. What we are speaking about is that there is a clear conflict of interest here for this Attorney-General in bringing this action. As some of these authorities that I have cited show, it is absolutely imperative that the legislature, with very limited exceptions, is able to debate these matters, and I would put it to you, Mr Speaker, that we have not come close to the sub judice rule in our discussions today.
It is imperative that we are able to debate this. Otherwise, every time there is a tough matter for the government, they could bring a court action and we would be barred from talking about it. That is not the way this works. The sub judice rule is a limited protection for the courts. As was pointed out, it is a self-imposed discipline by the legislature. The legislature decides what is reasonable, but the authorities would say that the discussions today have not gone close to encroaching on the sub judice rule.
MR QUINLAN (Molonglo—Treasurer and Minister for Economic Development) (11.41): Mr Speaker, in relation to the dissent motion, I think your ruling has to be accepted in this place, unless there is anybody here who can categorically predict that conflict of interest will not become a matter before the Supreme Court. If that cannot be shown, obviously the sub judice rule that you have applied ought to be applied.
As to matters of public record, there is much on the public record in relation to this coronial inquest that ought not be there. I would be very concerned if the previous lack of regard for the judicial process shown by the opposition through a series of question times—walking the fine line and making accusations of public statements—were to become the benchmark or the low water mark for this place. Mr Speaker, I commend your ruling to the house.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (11.43): Mr Speaker, it is a very unusual event—I am sure that it is not necessarily an entirely painless one for you or us—that we are moving dissent from your ruling, but this matter is of paramount interest to the community and the ACT as a whole. Your ruling, Mr Speaker, boils down to the fact that we in this place cannot mention anything that, in your view, may come before the Supreme Court. Mr Quinlan expanded on that and said that we have to maintain your ruling, unless we can categorically predict that the issue of the attorney’s conflict of interest will not be raised before the Supreme Court.
I disagree heartily for two reasons, and they go to the heart of why we are moving dissent from your ruling today. The question is not whether a matter may be raised in the Supreme Court. The question is that in discussing it here and then its subsequently being raised in the Supreme Court, the discussion of it here will in some way prejudice the hearings, that the discussion of it here will in some way substantially affect the judgment of the full Supreme Court.
We appointed those people to high positions of trust because of their capacity to act independently. At the same time we appointed people to the Magistrates Court to act as coroners because of their high status in the community and their capacity to act independently. It would be a different matter if this were a jury trial. There would be a different set of rules, a different set of criteria.
Everyone has spoken in hushed tones about the sub judice rule. It has been extemporised and carried out to such an extent that the first law officer has shown a complete lack of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .