Page 1259 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Ms Porter, I believe—and I can be corrected on this—was in the chair as Deputy Speaker and no objection was raised in relation to this. In fact we actually had a discussion about relevance and I think we were able to keep speaking.
Mr Speaker, we vehemently oppose this kind of ruling. The idea that members in this place should be gagged from speaking about serious issues, from condemning criminal activity, is outrageous, and we will not be. What will happen now is that there will be more freedom for members to speak outside the chamber because we have been happy to go outside this chamber and condemn it. But we are now being told that in this chamber freedom of speech does not apply. We disagree.
Mr Speaker, I note the absolute conflict of interest on this issue. We have raised this issue before, where the very person making rulings is of course the person who has been subject to the criticisms. With the criticisms, obviously, we saw how sensitive the Greens were on this issue and now we see the Speaker coming in with a different hat on and making a ruling in relation to that criticism of Shane Rattenbury.
It is extraordinary that the Assembly is now in this position where we have such a conflict of interest when the Speaker makes rulings in relation to things that the Speaker, or Shane Rattenbury, or the Greens do not particularly like. And they do not like this issue. We do know how sensitive they are on this issue, Mr Speaker. The Greens have shown themselves to be sensitive on this issue with the way they have reacted, every time they are called on for their failure to condemn criminal acts, on their nod and a wink to activists going in and damaging property.
Mr Speaker, we completely disagree with this. We dissent from this ruling. It is a conflicted ruling and it appears designed to prevent the opposition from raising legitimate issues of concern, in this case on a court case where the individuals have actually pleaded guilty, and that is extraordinary. We will now be in a position where we have more freedom of speech in the media, in the public realm, than we do in the Assembly. That is a dangerous precedent and it is a precedent that we completely and utterly reject. I dissent from the ruling.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development) (10.10): Mr Speaker, your ruling should be upheld. It is disappointing that the Leader of the Opposition apparently has not even read the document you have tabled this morning, which outlines very clearly why you have ruled that the sub judice rule does apply in relation to the comments that have been made by Mr Seselja and Mr Hanson.
Let us be very clear about what continuing resolution 10 of the Assembly says. Continuing resolution 10 of the Assembly says:
(1) Cases in which proceedings are active in the courts shall not be referred to in any motion, debate or question.
(a) (i) Criminal proceedings are active when a charge has been made or a summons to appear has been issued.
(ii) Criminal proceedings cease to be active when they are concluded by verdict and sentence or discontinuance …
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video