Page 2196 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 9 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Subject to the discretion of the Chair, and to the right of the Assembly to legislate on any matter or to discuss any matter …
So it sets up the caveat at the beginning. But it is equally clear that it says:
… shall apply the following rules on matters sub judice.
We all know the difference in the usage of the word “shall”, and it is quite explicit in here. It goes on to say in paragraph (1):
Cases in which proceedings are active in the courts shall not be referred to in any motion, debate or question.
Again, I think that the Assembly, in adopting this resolution, was quite clear about its intent—that it really wanted to constrain itself to be quite circumspect in these matters. We are quite fortunate in this place to have a very clear resolution that the Assembly has passed. In other parliaments they rely much more on convention. It is worth acknowledging that the Assembly has specifically turned its mind to this.
In light of the discussion we have had on this for now the second time in recent times, if Mrs Dunne and her colleagues have a serious issue with this continuing resolution we need to take this up outside the specific debates. We cannot keep attacking the rulings of the chair and the chair’s application of the continuing resolution if the actual issue is that we disagree about the continuing resolution. I would encourage members to consider whether we need to take this matter up in administration and procedures or some other forum rather than continuing to take out dissent motions in the chamber.
The Greens will not be supporting this dissent motion today. We believe that the continuing resolution is clear in its intent. I also believe that the matters Mrs Dunne is raising are not necessary for a discussion to take place on the matters she has raised.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (11.29): Madam Deputy Speaker, firstly let me respond to some of what Mr Rattenbury had to say. It is not a question of whether or not Mrs Dunne could discuss this motion without referring to the matters that she is referring to. It is a matter of whether she should be constrained and, in effect, gagged by your ruling and by the Assembly from discussing matters which are discussed in the public domain.
Mr Rattenbury put forward two propositions. One was that we should be amending the continuing resolution. That is true. We think the continuing resolution was a gag order from a majority Labor government. It does not actually reflect the sub judice principle. If you look at the sub judice principle, this resolution does not reflect it.
But even within the constraints of this continuing resolution, Mrs Dunne has not breached it. I note that Mr Corbell and Mr Rattenbury could not point to how she has. The resolution simply says:
Cases in which proceedings are active in the courts shall not be referred to in any motion, debate or question.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video