Page 1277 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
past application in applying the rule—and that has been outlined by Mr Corbell today and includes our federal parliament—we have very clearly articulated its scope and application and made it very clear that, as a parliament, we believe that we should limit speech on these matters and be very careful in our comments to ensure we do not prejudice a citizen’s right to a fair and impartial hearing and that we respect the role that the judiciary plays and do not inappropriately comment on the ways it performs that role. In recognising the importance of this principle, the parliament has agreed to bind itself to a standard of conduct and has established that, in all but the most exceptional circumstance, those different roles that I have outlined, the different roles between the legislature and the judiciary, the public interest is in protecting that strict separation and ensuring that the rule of law and the right to a fair trial are upheld.
We all recognise the importance of free speech. That has been spoken about this morning, and the fact that the parliament has resolved that it should restrict the ability of members in this place to speak on these issues demonstrates just how important the sub judice convention is. Look at the House of Representatives Practice. It does address the issue. It says that it is a restraint born out of respect by parliament for the judicial arm of government, a democratic respect for the rule of law and the proper upholding of the law by fair trial proceedings. Further—and this is on page 507—it quotes a ruling by Speaker Snedden, expressing an anxiousness that there be no prejudice whatever to persons faced with criminal action. Our Companion to the Standing Orders describes the convention as adopting a significant limitation on an ability of the Assembly to consider and discuss matters.
Mr Seselja goes on to talk about gagging their right to freedom of speech. I can just see the press release now. And it is a ridiculous stand that he is taking. It is very clear that we have rules here. They do not apply just to some of us; they apply to all of us. And we need to take regard of those rules. As I have noted, it is clearly outlined in the Companion and in the House of Representatives Practice.
Last Wednesday evening, continuing resolution 10 was clearly breached. On a number of occasions both Mr Seselja and Mr Hanson made comments about the particular details of the case concerning the incident at the CSIRO that, as I said, is before the courts. At one point Mr Seselja did say that he was talking about a general principle, which I agree may have been perfectly acceptable to talk about. However, soon after making that statement, he then proceeded to talk about the very specific case and his views about the impact of the accused persons’ actions and his views about the need for all leaders in the community to condemn those actions. Given that these people are currently awaiting sentence before ACT courts, the inappropriateness of these statements cannot be overstated.
Mr Hanson made similar comments about the effect the incident had had on staff, saying that they had been traumatised, that he condemned the action and that others should likewise condemn that action. There is absolutely no question that this was a clear breach of the continuing resolution and amounted to sub judice. There can be no doubt that Mr Seselja’s and Mr Hanson’s comments condemning the particular action and talking quite extensively about their views as to the impacts of those actions very clearly identified that matter that, as we know, is before the courts.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video