Page 4184 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 16 November 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
What is it that has occurred that has led the Liberal Party in this place to propose that the sub judice convention be turned upside down, be turned on its ear—that we, the elected Assembly of the ACT, should not follow the practice that is adopted in every other parliament in Australia, including the federal parliament, the practice that is adopted in the House of Commons and probably, although I have not pursued it at this point, every comparable parliament in the world, including those, I am sure, in places such as New Zealand, Canada and other common law Western democracies.
What is it that has led the Liberal Party in the ACT to choose to break away from the application and operation of the sub judice convention as applied in the House of Representatives, in the Senate, in the New South Wales parliament, the Victorian parliament, the Tasmanian parliament, the British parliament, the New Zealand parliament and the Canadian parliament? What is it? Of course, it is the inquest into the 2003 bushfires. This is all about seeking shallow, partisan, political advantage in relation to an issue around which the Liberal Party in this place believes that it might have some political advantage to make or take. That is all it can be.
It is interesting to contrast this with the respect shown to the sub judice rule in a previous Assembly, particularly during the time of the long and extensive inquest into the hospital implosion. We in opposition at the time did not ask a single question or move a single motion or raise matters of public importance during the conduct of the inquest—not one. During the conduct of the inquest, we did not ask questions in question time. We did not propose matters of public importance. We did not discuss in here issues being agitated during the conduct of the coronial inquest into the hospital implosion in the way that this opposition has done over the last three years about the bushfires.
How many hundreds of questions have been asked? How many motions and matters of public importance have been pursued in relation to the bushfires? Just go out and compare the numbers of questions that have been asked by this opposition—I believe, skirting and flirting and ignoring the sub judice rule—in relation to a matter currently being agitated before the coronial inquest. To give some substance to the implications or effect or the very partisan and shallow political approach and attitude that has been adopted by the opposition in relation to this motion, this issue, one can draw on examples. I think each of us could do it—if not in relation to ourselves, certainly in relation to others in this place.
As we all know, half of the current opposition have been involved in legal proceedings before the court over the last few years. Just to bring this motion in to fine point, it is relevant to ask: how would members in this place feel or respond to this motion to wind back, to water down, the convention in relation to sub judice and a rule which requires that, in the interests of fairness and justice, matters being agitated before a court not be agitated or discussed or debated in this place out of fairness to those that are involved and in the interests of justice? That is what the sub judice rule is around: a rule designed to ensure anybody involved or caught up in a matter before a court is not disadvantaged as a result of a matter being pursued in relation to that issue in this place, where, of course, proceedings are privileged.
As I indicated before, this is about the expression or the imposition of some discipline on this place. As we all know, members attract and are covered by parliamentary privilege,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .