Page 1274 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
assist their political arguments in this place. They should refrain from such comments in the future. They should be more diplomatic and considered in what they say in relation to such matters. Most importantly, they should have regard to a resolution of this place which says very clearly “do not refer to criminal proceedings that are on foot lest there be any risk that your comments seek to prejudice, in perception or reality, the conduct of those proceedings”. That is the matter at stake, and that is why this motion should be supported today.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (11.04): The opposition will not be supporting this motion. I would like to go back a little while in terms of this issue and to say that the Canberra Liberals, and I in particular, have consistently stood up for freedom of speech in this place. In fact, I recall very clearly standing up for one of my political opponents in this place: Dr Foskey. Dr Foskey, of course, was being, in my opinion, unreasonably restrained in her ability to comment on an issue by the imposition of the sub judice rule by the Speaker at the time. It was ironic, because Dr Foskey was talking about the issue of SLAPP suits, which the Greens have had a lot to say about—these strategic law suits the Greens believe are used by big companies such as Gunns to limit freedom of speech.
I made the point that it was extraordinary that we would have a situation where a so-called SLAPP suit—if you accept that terminology—in Tasmania was being used to gag debate in the Legislative Assembly of the ACT. Despite the fact that I do not really agree with much of what many of these activists in Tasmania have to say, I defend their right to speak, and I defended Dr Foskey’s right to speak in this place.
Now we have a situation where, because the Greens and the Labor Party do not like the particular political attack that we are making, they will use the office of the Speaker to seek to impose a gag order on an issue which is so far progressed that the individuals involved have already pleaded guilty, an issue where the facts are no longer in dispute.
Mr Corbell very clearly gave two positions on whether or not this had the potential to prejudice. He said early in his speech that it is not about influencing the courts, because he was very confident it would not influence the courts. But later in his speech he said it would clearly prejudice the outcome. You cannot have it both ways; you cannot contradict yourself in your own speech in terms of what it would do. If you take the view that it would prejudice the outcome, you are holding the Supreme Court in very low regard.
The utter hypocrisy of this motion is extraordinary. We had a detailed debate in this place on this issue while the proceedings were very early—well before they had progressed but charges had been laid. The Speaker at the time made no such ruling. Members right across the chamber spoke in that debate. But today we have a situation where the Labor Party are aligning themselves with the Greens on this issue. They are aligning themselves with the Shane Rattenbury view of the world, and they are saying that because Shane Rattenbury was uncomfortable about these attacks they will now impose a gag.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video