Page 1270 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
A number of questions are referred to in the Companion to the Standing Orders. How far advanced are the legal proceedings? In this case, as opposed to the debate that Mr Hanson, of course, referred to, they are actually very advanced to the extent that the individuals have pleaded guilty. The facts are actually not in dispute. How susceptible is the court to external influence? It makes a very clear point that if it is before a jury there is more potential for influence.
This is, I understand, before the Supreme Court for sentencing. So the idea that is being put in this ruling and supported by the Attorney-General is that our Supreme Court is not up to it. They are suggesting that our Supreme Court, when someone has pleaded guilty, is going to be influenced by debates in this place, which have also taken place outside this place, and that they are somehow going to either give a greater sentence or a lesser sentence based on debate in the Assembly. That is the position that has been put forward by the Attorney-General and the Labor Party and it has been put forward in this ruling.
Indeed, we go to the issue of by what mechanism will parliamentary debate actually interfere with judicial proceedings and we get to questions of public interest. Does the public interest outweigh concerns? Let us have a look at it here. We have got a situation where the guilt or innocence is not in dispute. The individuals have pleaded guilty. We have a serious issue of public interest. The public interest, which is why it has played out publicly, which is why Mr Rattenbury, of course, felt he needed to write opinion pieces on the issue, arises because people care about whether their law-makers are going to stand for the rule of law, are going to actually condemn illegal activity or not.
The sensitivity of the Greens on this point goes to the issue of public interest because people have a natural expectation that people in this place, particularly the Speaker, would actually stand up very clearly and be condemning illegal activity. That goes to the heart of this matter, Mr Speaker. It goes to the heart of your conflict on this issue. It is interesting how the Labor Party have now sided with you on this. In the past they were actually prepared to condemn you. They were prepared to say that your comments were unwise and they were prepared to actually distance themselves from those kinds of comments.
Today the Labor Party stand next to you on that. They are there to defend the indefensible and the indefensible is to in any way condone illegal activity. The sensitivity on this point is clear. We now have a Speaker coming in who has been the subject of criticism for his position on this particular issue. He is now ruling that, given the sensitivity, the Liberal Party can no longer talk about it. This is a Speaker who was in the chair when it was being talked about by the Greens and it was being talked about by the Labor Party, and he made no such ruling.
It is highly hypocritical, Mr Speaker. It has no credibility and it leads to a situation where we can now step out of the chamber and have more freedom of speech than we will have in the chamber under your ruling. It also leads to an absurd situation where Speakers will be coming back because apparently the person in the chair did not rule. In this case we have had yourself not ruling. We have had you in the chamber not
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video