Page 1276 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
stand up for our right to condemn behaviour which is illegal and condemn politicians who in any way endorse that kind of behaviour.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Leader, ACT Greens) (11.12): Again we have heard from Mr Seselja and yet no substance. He does not actually address the motion that is before us or address this issue of continuing resolution 10. And we have just heard in Mr Seselja’s speech that the Greens are somehow sensitive on these matters. That is not so at all. I thought that Mr Rattenbury’s speech last week was an excellent speech that clearly outlined the issues and his stance on matters. It was an excellent speech, and I really do recommend that the Canberra Liberals go back and read that speech.
The reality is that Mr Seselja and Mr Hanson were not circumspect when they got up to speak last week. They did not consider their words. They were on the attack and they were blinded by that attack. It was political and they were going to go out as hard as they possibly could. They lost perspective and they then, therefore, gave speeches that condemned people, that had no thought for the rules of this place, that had no thought for the fact that they were breaching the rules of this place, and that is clearly set out in continuing resolution 10.
Mr Smyth interjecting—
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Smyth, I do not want a running commentary from you, please.
MS HUNTER: My colleague Ms Le Couteur raised the issue. She said in her speech, “We need to be very careful here because of the sub judice rules.” Mr Seselja then got up—and I remember this—and mocked her. He said: “How ridiculous! That does not apply at all. You don’t know what you are on about.” He mocked her and was joined by members on the front bench in mocking Ms Le Couteur when she raised this important issue.
The question before us today is extremely important, and it is important for a number of reasons. It is about protecting that fundamental principle that is the separation of power between the legislature and the judiciary. The importance of ensuring that each arm of government is separate and does not interfere with the other is one of the fundamental underpinnings of our system of government. The principle is very clearly protected by the Australian constitution and is something that courts have gone to great lengths to protect ever since Australia federated.
Equally, this legislature has a responsibility to protect that strict separation. We have done this by adopting continuing resolution 10 and setting out very clearly that in any motion, debate or question we shall not refer to matters before a court. This is unequivocal. It says that we shall not refer in any motion, debate or question to matters before a court.
The principle of sub judice has long been recognised by Westminster parliaments and is something that parliaments have gone to great lengths to protect. And it should be noted that, unlike many other Westminster parliaments who rely on convention and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video