Page 3898 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 19 October 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
somehow perhaps affect a future witness in the giving of evidence, whether for the prosecution or the defence, then the matter for debate or questioning before the Assembly should be allowed;
Again, that is a reiteration of the principles enunciated in Odgers’ Senate Practice, latest edition, edition 11, and House of Representatives Practice. I continue:
(4) sub judice only applies to matters which are awaiting or under adjudication in a court; and
again, a reiteration of the principles followed by Australian parliaments, especially the House of Representative and the Senate, which we place great store in and which we go to for interpretation if our standing orders do not cover matters—
(5) this resolution have effect from the date it is passed by the Assembly and continue in force unless and until amended or repealed by this or a subsequent Assembly.
In other words, a notice of continuance would go in the back of our standing orders. I submit that that is a sensible series of guidelines that would assist everyone in this place and future members of this place. I understand the government is going to oppose this motion, and I find that very disappointing.
One of the problems is—and I note that this is so since this government took majority control last October—that debate in this chamber has, in my view, been stifled, curtailed or prevented by a blanket application of the convention of sub judice.
MR SPEAKER: Order! It is not appropriate for a member to criticise past decisions of the Speaker. By characterising them and my decisions in relation to sub judice as some sort of a blanket stifling of debate is quite inappropriate, Mr Stefaniak. So you will desist.
MR STEFANIAK: All right, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: You have the opportunity at any time when I make decisions in relation to sub judice to move a motion of dissent and so on, and you have indeed done that.
MR STEFANIAK: I have.
MR SPEAKER: But it is not appropriate for you to continue to be critical of those decisions.
MR STEFANIAK: I will rephrase that. Thank you for that direction. You are right. I have moved one or two motions of dissent. They were, indeed, unsuccessful.
What we need to do here is ensure that we have some clear guidelines that will assist this Assembly to utilise the sub judice rules and the sub judice conventions along the lines that all the other parliaments in Australia do, especially the House of Representatives and the Senate, which have been dealing with this matter really for a lot longer than 40 years. Clearly, when you look at Odgers’, there are a lot of precedents that go back 40 or
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .