Page 1260 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Speaker, this case is still a live matter before the courts. Mr Seselja knew that it was a live matter before the courts. Yes, the individuals that are involved have pleaded guilty to the charges but they have not yet been sentenced. The matter has been remitted to the Supreme Court for sentence and that is where Mr Seselja’s and Mr Hanson’s comments breached the sub judice rule. As the Clerk outlines very clearly in the advice that you, Mr Speaker, have tabled this morning, the risk, of course, is that comments in the Assembly about the seriousness or non-seriousness of crimes committed before the sentence is handed down could be perceived as the legislature trying to ensure that an appropriate sentence is given.
Mr Speaker, these are matters of perception, not just of actual consequence. That is a very important part of the sub judice principle. The sub judice principle is about avoiding any perception that this place, the legislature, is seeking to influence or express an opinion about how the court does its job.
Mr Seselja wants to be the Chief Minister. Mr Seselja wants to be the primary official of the territory when it comes to the governance of the territory, and he should have exercised more restraint. He should have exercised more diplomacy. He should have had greater regard for the sensitivities that exist when it comes to making comments about matters that are still live questions before the courts in the territory. But he failed to do so, and for that reason I foreshadow that after this dissent motion has been dealt with I will be moving the motion that I have circulated in my name which expresses grave concern about Mr Seselja’s and Mr Hanson’s comments in relation to this matter.
Turning to the matter of the dissent, quite frankly it is astonishing that the Leader of the Opposition will stand up in this place and completely ignore the provisions of continuing resolution 10 which require that members in this place do not make comments in relation to matters that are still before the courts in relation to trial or sentence. Instead he chose simply to make those comments for his own base political purposes.
We can have a debate about the appropriateness of those activities at Ginninderra research station but we should also have regard for the resolution of this place—a resolution adopted on 6 March 2008 which said very clearly that members should not make comments about matters which are currently the subject of criminal proceedings where matters are yet to be—
Mrs Dunne: Subject to the discretion of the chair.
MR CORBELL: Yes, and what has the chair ruled? The chair has ruled that the comments were indeed a breach of the sub judice principles. And if you look very closely at the comments of the Clerk in the advice he has provided to the Speaker and which the Speaker has tabled, they are a very clear outlining of the principles of the sub judice convention and how they should be applied in this case.
Mr Speaker, there is no ground for dissent. The advice of the Clerk is clear, and the person who should be held accountable for these comments is not the Speaker in his
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video