Page 1273 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Of course, it is also worth observing that these matters are still before the courts, and guilt has not yet been proven in relation to this matter. That is a matter that we should appropriately keep in that context.
At no time did members of the government in that debate or in debates subsequently seek to place any particular detailed judgement about what had occurred in relation to that matter. General comments were made about the importance of respecting the law or upholding the law, of ensuring that all citizens abide by the law, but they did not go into the specifics of the motivations or the particular circumstances of the matter that was before the court. Mr Seselja did, and he did so quite explicitly.
For example, Mr Seselja described the behaviour as intimidatory. He went on to talk about deliberate and wanton destruction of property. He described it as an attack on scientists, whatever that means. That could quite easily be construed as some sort of attack in some sort of physical form, almost in the nature of an assault. His language was most injudicious, and this, of course, is the point of the sub judice rule. The point of the convention is to not make comments in this place that make judgements about matters that are properly within the realm of the courts to determine. At the same time, they should not be comments that in any way seek to prejudice, through perception or reality, what occurs in the third arm of government.
That is why the sub judice convention exists. Unlike the House of Representatives, which has not drawn a black line around these matters about what can and cannot be discussed, this place has, in the same way that the House of Commons has, which is where our continuing resolution comes from. This place has decided that these matters should be determined in a much more precise manner—that is, if the matter is live, if the matter is before the courts, the matter should not be discussed in this place. That is the rule in this place. It is not the rule that applies in the House of Representatives. In the House of Representatives it is much more nuanced. But it is not the rule that applies here, because this place has decided otherwise. This place has decided that, when it comes to proceedings that are active in the courts, they shall not be mentioned, they shall not be referred to, and they shall not be referred to until the matter is concluded by discontinuance or sentence.
Mr Seselja has breached the standing orders; he has breached that continuing resolution. Mr Hanson has breached that continuing resolution. Quite clearly, they should be held to account for it. As my colleague Mr Barr said earlier, it is everyone else’s fault—it is not Mr Seselja’s fault; it is not Mr Hanson’s fault; it is everybody else’s fault. Well, everyone else has to play by the same rules. Everyone else has to respect the provisions set out in this place and agreed to by this place. It is quite clear in the advice that the Speaker has tabled this morning from the Clerk that Mr Seselja’s comments present the danger of prejudice to proceedings; therefore the resolution should apply to the comments. That is the Clerk’s advice. We respect and accept the Clerk’s advice in relation to this matter. The Speaker has determined consistent with the Clerk’s advice, which is what the Speaker should do, particularly in this instance.
For that reason this Assembly should make clear to Mr Seselja and Mr Hanson its grave concern at their willingness to drag in a live matter of criminal proceedings to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video