Page 1272 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Speaker, today we have heard comments from Mr Seselja and Mr Hanson that they do not think the standing orders apply to them. They do not think they should be held to account in this place for comments that deliberately breached one of the most important principles in the conduct of the legislature when it comes to the other arms of government in the territory. This is simply not good enough.
Ministers are held to account; other members in this place are held to account. The same should apply to Mr Seselja and other members of the opposition. The principle that underpins the concept of sub judice is extremely important because it recognises and reaffirms and projects this place’s commitment to the fact that the operations of our courts and the operations of the executive to a lesser degree are separate from the functions of the legislature—in particular, the importance of the operation of our courts.
Our courts are independent and they must be seen to be independent. I would ask members to consider this proposition: if a judge made a comment about whether or not the Legislative Assembly should pass a law, a law that was currently before this place, members in this place would be rightly concerned that a member of the judiciary was seeking to interpose themselves and express an opinion as to how this place should determine a matter. But that, in reverse, is exactly what Mr Seselja did in the debate on 21 March—he interposed himself into a matter which is currently before a court in order to determine the appropriate sanction that should be applied to two people who have pleaded guilty to certain charges.
It is just extraordinary that Mr Seselja seems to think it is appropriate that he can come into this place and have no regard for the perception that may be created about what sort of sanction or what sort of seriousness should apply to a matter which is currently before the court for sentence. It is extraordinary that he comes into this place and makes comments about the seriousness of the matter and, in effect, tries to escalate the attention that should be paid to it. Perceptions of the administration of justice and its independence are just as important as actual ability to improperly influence.
Mr Seselja will stand up, I am sure, later in the debate today and say there is no way that his comments could be seen as an attempt to influence the courts. Well, they may not influence the court—in fact, I have every confidence that they will not influence the court—but it is the perception that they create in the broader public milieu. The fact is that Mr Seselja holds a position of authority. Mr Seselja has the ability to influence public opinion and perception through his comments both in this place and outside it. It is incumbent on him to make those comments with discretion when a matter is before the court.
We have heard the defence from the Liberal Party: “Oh well, some comments were made in debate in August last year in a want of confidence motion,” a motion moved by Mr Seselja against you, Mr Speaker. The suggestion has been that because other members contributed to that debate you cannot be having an argument about sub judice now. Well, I draw members’ attention to what was actually said by me and other government members in that debate. In particular, I make the point that I said:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video