Page 803 - Week 02 - Thursday, 12 February 2009

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

MR SESELJA: Well, it appears to be in this case. We look forward to seeing how this Greens-Labor alliance evolves, because we have heard from officials this week that things are changing on an hourly basis. The community is not sure about it. I do not expect that the Labor Party will honour much of this agreement. We have seen the indications already this week in terms of mental health and other areas. They are going to try and back out of every part of it.

What we have seen today is quite farcical and will lead to a situation which is not ideal. It will create a situation which I do not believe will be in the best interests of the territory or the Assembly going forward.

Question put:

That Mrs Dunne’s amendment be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Ayes 5

Noes 10

Mr Coe

Mr Barr

Ms Hunter

Mr Doszpot

Ms Bresnan

Ms Le Couteur

Mrs Dunne

Mr Corbell

Ms Porter

Mr Hanson

Ms Gallagher

Mr Rattenbury

Mr Seselja

Mr Hargreaves

Mr Stanhope

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (4:46), by leave: I move:

(1) in paragraph (4), after “deemed to”, omit “be”; and

(2) in paragraph (7), omit all words after “be” (second occurring), substitute “a retired Supreme Court, Federal Court or High Court Judge”.

These amendments are relatively straightforward. The first of them, as people can see from the sheet, simply fixes a typographical error that Mrs Dunne was just referring to. The second changes the proposed standing order so that it must be a retired judge who is appointed as the independent arbiter. As Ms Hunter noted in her earlier comments, the Greens agree with the views adopted by the superior courts of a number of other jurisdictions as well as our own. It is within the jurisdiction of the courts to determine whether a privilege exists and we believe that it is appropriate that it is a former judicial officer, a person who has been trusted with the judicial authority of a court, rather than a senior barrister who makes determinations on questions of privilege.

I think it is possible that a senior counsel or a Queen’s counsel could make these determinations, but our preference at this time is to go with a judicial officer. If we find that we have a problem filling the role—insufficient people to conduct this—then we can come back and consider expanding the list. But at this time this is the proposal we intend to move forward on.

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