Page 496 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 10 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I would like to say at the outset that we do not wish to debate the merits of the particular legal case. We do not offer any comment on the validity or otherwise of the minister’s comments, nor do we think that this debate should extend beyond the incident referred to in the motion before the Assembly.
The question before us as we debate the motion is whether it is appropriate that the Attorney-General, the first law officer of this jurisdiction, should be commenting on behalf of the government on the facts or merits of a particular and clearly identifiable legal matter. The minister indicated at the outset of the interview on ABC radio that two persons were charged with a particular offence. To then sit about and criticise what might be a legitimate defence to such a charge is most inappropriate.
It has been brought to my attention that the individuals involved have not been charged with the offence, so there is no issue of contempt or a strict sub judice offence. However, I assume that charges will eventually be brought, as foreshadowed by the Attorney-General, and, therefore, the issue of sub judice contempt cannot be dismissed entirely. Whilst this is not at the most serious end of the scale in that it may not prejudice a fair trial, the mere potential that it may do so is a serious issue that should be considered by the Assembly in the absence of an apology or a retraction by the Attorney-General. If the minister does not agree, then it is important that the matter is discussed so that the Assembly has the occasion to form a view on what it sees as an appropriate delineation between the arms of government and the necessary mechanisms to ensure the independence of the judiciary.
I would also like to make the point that we recognise the long-standing record of the government and Minister Corbell on human rights. The Greens are supporting this motion because it centres on a particular statement Mr Corbell made in the media which, in our view, is in contradiction to the presumption of innocence.
Our legal system presumes people are innocent of crimes until they are proven guilty. That is one of the underlying principles of the approach to justice in our society. This presumption of innocence is widely regarded as a basic human right, the right to a fair trial as it were. Article 11 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
Everyone charged with a … offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
The separation of powers in our democracy and the independence of the judiciary is a key principle in our legal system and one which the High Court consistently maintains. In this instance, the comments by the Attorney-General may not have an impact on the capacity of the courts to make an impartial and just decision in any future action, but there is a principle at stake here that in this case we need to act upon.
I would like to reiterate that in addressing this motion the Greens are only interested in the specific comments made by the Attorney-General, and the comments do not reflect on the broader performance or other decisions taken by the minister. It is simply that in this instance the Attorney-General contravened an important principle
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .