Page 1278 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
One matter that has been raised is the substantive effect of comments on members of the judiciary. It is certainly reasonable to argue that the comments may have a limited effect on judicial decision makers. That is not to say that we should disregard this issue altogether and that we should be mindful of the impact in practice. This is one of the reasons why I agree that the comments merit an expression of grave concern rather than any other action that could be taken.
As I said earlier, this is only part of the matter, and I draw members’ attention to paragraph 10.92 of the Companion, which quotes a passage in Odgers referring to a quote by Justice Spender of the Federal Court:
… ‘if the effect of a public prejudgement is to undermine public confidence in that judgement, even though it does not affect the process by which that judgement is reached, that equally is a contempt’.
It is worth noting that on a number of occasions Mr Seselja and other members of the Canberra Liberals have talked about the importance of the rule of law and yet the other evening they were very willing to trample upon it and make very inappropriate comments that do have the potential to impinge upon the very clear role of the judiciary. I draw members’ attention to the earlier quote I read from the House of Representatives Practice.
For these reasons, the Greens agree that it does warrant a motion of grave concern in the Assembly and, equally, we agree to support the other provisions of the motion. It is important and appropriate that we reaffirm our commitment to continuing resolution 10. And I will leave it to my colleague Ms Bresnan to go to those matters about other debates that have been held in this place and comments that have been made around this issue of sub judice. She will go into some detail about comments that have been made and how some of the comments we have heard this morning from the Canberra Liberals seem quite outrageous, considering speeches that have been given in the past in this place.
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (11.22): The Canberra Liberals have a very clear view on this whole matter. The crime was conducted at the CSIRO and people were found guilty. The facts are not in dispute. And our issue with this whole matter has not been aimed at litigating the case; it has not been about the issue itself; it has been a matter of the Greens’ response to it. The Greens’ response has shown two things: firstly, they are unable to condemn what, in Mr Rattenbury’s own definition, is a violent action. So they have been unable to condemn it. Secondly, it has shown the rank hypocrisy of the Speaker, sitting in that chair for half of his time and sitting down there as the activist for the other half of his time.
I thank Mr Corbell for bringing this motion before the house today, because this is an issue we want to be talking about. I think that when this goes out into the community—the issue about sub judice, a matter before the courts and so on—that will be a little lost in translation, and the key thing that people will consider is: why is it that the Greens refuse to condemn this action? Why is Mr Rattenbury so conflicted? Is it because he is a member of Greenpeace? This is an issue we want to be talking about in the Canberra Liberals.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video