Page 1283 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The Law Commission of New Zealand highlighted why the right to a fair trial has a higher right than the right to express views about a case in hand.
And further:
When a conflict arises between a fair trial and freedom of speech, the former has prevailed because the compromise of a fair trial for a particular accused may cause them permanent harm …
One of the questions we have to ask today in considering whether we express serious concern about the actions of the Attorney is whether the Attorney has caused permanent harm to these men whose case is live before the court.
In the case of the New South Wales Attorney-General v Time Inc Magazine, Mr Justice Gleeson of the New South Wales Supreme Court, although acknowledging that there was a perfectly legitimate right to express views about a particular case, said that there is no right under the constitution or at common law to do so at the expense of the due administration of justice.
I think that is an interesting point. We have heard the Canberra Liberals making various comments about freedom of speech and about what has happened today. Mrs Dunne has clearly outlined our case in her speech on a matter that came before the Assembly in 2009. Again we see a situation where, if anyone does what has been done by Mr Hanson and Mr Seselja, we will bring them before the Assembly and we will address that. If the Canberra Liberals do it, that is okay; we do not have to worry about it. This has been a matter discussed in the Assembly on more than one occasion. It is worth pointing out that no other members in the chamber made comments about the guilt or otherwise of the people in question. They basically pilloried these individuals regardless of whether or not they were being charged or making a plea. That is why we have the standing order that we have, so we do not have members in the chamber—and I think Mrs Dunne outlined that perfectly in her speech—making comments about cases and how people should be judged for sentence.
The Liberals keep talking about discretion. We have heard it mentioned a number of times. Again, they did not address it in their speeches, but I remind them—
Mrs Dunne: There’s a difference.
MS BRESNAN: Mrs Dunne is saying it is different; I cannot wait to hear how it is different—that Mr Corbell asked the Speaker to review the matter. The Speaker did that. He received advice from the Clerk and then acted on that advice. Again, that is a point they did not address in any of their speeches today. What we have seen here today is basically the Canberra Liberals grasping at straws because they know they have done something wrong. We have seen repeatedly—and again we saw it from Mr Hanson in his speech today—that they have no boundaries in what they are prepared to say in the chamber. That is what they are being drawn to account for today.
As I said in speaking to the dissent ruling, this is also another case of the Canberra Liberals thinking the standing orders and the processes of the Assembly apply to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video