Page 2198 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 9 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
are not mentioned, when the individual is not mentioned, when the case is not mentioned, we should be able to have reasonable discussions even within the constraints of this continuing resolution. That is why your ruling was wrong. That is why your ruling should be overruled by this Assembly.
But I make a broader point, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Labor Party and the Greens are now getting very keen to shut down discussion on things they do not like. The bail laws in this place, and the egregious examples of how these bail laws have failed the community, should be aired in this place. They should be aired in this place, and we will air them. You can gag us in here; we will go out and talk about these things, because the community cares.
If an Assembly were to reflect what is going on in the community, if an Assembly were to be actually representative, we would have that debate right here. We would have that debate. We would have a mature discussion instead of this gag order that is being imposed as a result of the direction from the Attorney-General, who does not want to discuss the failures. As a result of that direction, we have seen this ruling, which is completely wrong, and we completely reject it.
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (11.35): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support dissent from your ruling. There seem to be two issues here. One is about the substance around continuing resolution 10 and whether that is appropriate. The other is whether Mrs Dunne has actually contravened continuing resolution 10. I will go to that matter first.
It is quite clear that Mrs Dunne has not contravened continuing resolution 10, and she has taken enormous care not to. Mr Seselja has laid that out in saying quite clearly that in everything that Mrs Dunne said she specifically avoided referring to this case. When we read continuing resolution 10, we see that it says:
Cases in which proceedings are active in the courts shall not be referred to in any motion, debate or question.
That is the substance. She did not. If you were to reflect on the Hansard—you heard what Mrs Dunne said. She clearly did not. She specifically avoided doing so. So it is impossible for me to see how she has in any way contravened continuing resolution 10.
On the broader matter with regard to the appropriateness of continuing resolution 10, I certainly agree with the points that have been made by my colleagues. It is ludicrous that an issue that has raised such community concern cannot be discussed in this place. It is an issue that is being discussed at length in the media—in the ABC, the Canberra Times, the RiotACT, every form of media—and to members directly. As I have been out and about in the community, this is an issue that has been raised with me. Members of the community have said to me: “What are you guys doing about it? This is an unacceptable situation. What is happening with bail in this jurisdiction is unacceptable. What are you going to do about it?”
This is a matter that the community feels very strongly about. It is in no sense exaggerating, as we have seen, to say that this is a life and death matter. But what we
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video