Page 2838 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 17 August 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
exposing us to the basis of his legal expertise, and the basis on which he has moved this amendment is that he saw on Boston Legal—Big Brother in the United States—how they do it there. So he thought he would come into the chamber and do the same here on the basis of this refined legal expertise, or the knowledge from these TV shows that we watch at home that this is how it is done over in America. That really does show the seriousness with which the opposition regards the issue. It shows the depth of its understanding of the issues of principle around decisions taken in relation to the coronial inquest and, indeed, the decision that I have taken in relation to legal advice.
One might say that there is some political advantage to be gained in this case. They can keep the debate going. They can seek to score the occasional political point or two on this issue by continuing to run essentially the same motions and see if they can get a little bit of traction in the public or in the media, because they are a divided mob. Mr Seselja himself will not declare loyalty to his leader. We know they are just waiting, so they desperately need to mend the fences and their credibility as an opposition.
Mr Seselja: He is in trouble, isn’t he? He still will not argue the merits. Does it attach to the lawyer or the client?
Mrs Dunne: Who owns the privilege?
Mr Seselja: Who owns the privilege, you or the lawyer?
MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Seselja!
MR STANHOPE: Mr Seselja and Mrs Dunne are two of the group that are leading the charge to unseat the leader. But there is a principle. It applies to cabinet documents as well. Someone here could say they want us to table a whole range of cabinet documents that they think might be of interest. They would mount exactly the same argument as has just been mounted in relation to legal documents and legal privilege. The privilege that applies to cabinet is essentially the same as the privilege that applies to legal advice. The issues are similar.
Mr Seselja: Exactly. You could table but—
MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Seselja!
MR STANHOPE: We could. We could come in here every day and table every cabinet document in our possession. But we are not going to, and for very good reason. It would impinge on the quality of the administration of the territory. We could come in here every day and table every legal advice we get on every subject, but we are not going to because it would impinge on the quality of the administration of justice and the law in the territory. We are not going to do that. I indicated yesterday it is to my political benefit.
Mr Seselja: So you say.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Seselja, you are on a warning. You have been given notice now.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .