Page 2837 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 17 August 2005

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

MR SESELJA: It is not, Mr Speaker. I have checked with the Clerk.

Mr Stanhope: I wonder whether it is consistent with standing orders for a motion that was moved, debated in the censure motion yesterday and defeated to be moved again today.

MR SPEAKER: Order! The matter certainly does go to an issue that was contained in part of the motion that was defeated yesterday, but it also has broader application in that it talks about any legal advice relevant to his decision to join an action to disqualify the coroner from her inquiry. So I think it is open to a member to move the amendment.

MR SESELJA: I move the following amendment to Mr Stanhope’s proposed amendment:

Add “and calls on the Attorney-General to table, by the close of business on Thursday, 18 August 2005, any legal advice relevant to his decision to join action to disqualify the Coroner from her inquiry, taken in the Supreme Court, and any subsequent advice following the outcome of that action.”.

I can see why the Attorney-General would not want to discuss it again. It is embarrassing when he hides behind legal principles that do not exist in the way that he claims they do. I say again to the Attorney-General that there is nothing stopping him from releasing this legal advice. We will believe what he says when he shows us the advice. If he does not, the public has a right to think that he has something to hide.

MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Environment and Minister Arts, Heritage and Indigenous Affairs) (3.55): I wish to speak to the amendment. As I indicated in my point of order, this amendment is essentially the same as a motion that was put and defeated yesterday. One of the reasons I made the point was to highlight the extent—

Mrs Dunne: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is the Chief Minister reflecting upon the ruling that you have just made?

MR SPEAKER: He ought not to, but I did not detect that. I will listen more closely, Mrs Dunne.

MR STANHOPE: I was not reflecting on your ruling, Mr Speaker. I was about to go on to indicate that I think that essentially the same motion has been moved in two days. A censure motion was moved yesterday calling on the government to table by close of business yesterday the legal advice relevant to its decision to join action to disqualify the coroner from her inquiry. That was the motion, essentially, yesterday that was defeated. The motion today is the same to that point and adds the words “or any subsequent advice”. The motion that was moved yesterday was defeated. Today there is an additional motion with five or six words added to the end of it to give it that patina of some legitimacy.

I do take issue with Mr Seselja’s legal advice and interpretation. He takes his legal advice from Big Brother or a variation of Big Brother and relies on Boston Legal, an American form of Big Brother. Mr Seselja, this bright young thing of a lawyer, is now

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .