Page 2195 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 9 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mrs Dunne is seeking to agitate on matters which are directly relevant to a proceeding which is currently before the courts. The prior criminal history of the individual who is now facing serious charges in the courts in relation to the tragic accident last week could be a consideration for that court if that matter reaches the appropriate stage. It is wrong of Mrs Dunne to seek to agitate on the issue of the previous criminal history, and therefore perhaps even imply some culpability in relation to that individual, in this place. That is a matter for the court to determine at the appropriate time, if it reaches that stage in the proceedings.
This place should not be used for an attempt to agitate on the culpability or otherwise of that individual. In raising the specific previous criminal history of that individual, I would argue, that is exactly what Mrs Dunne is trying to do. It is clearly a breach of the sub judice rule and it should not be permitted.
It is wrong for those opposite to claim that this means we cannot discuss bail, that we cannot discuss the general circumstances surrounding the grant of bail in particular instances. It is wrong for them to claim that, because you can do that. But Mrs Dunne is seeking to take it a step too far and to agitate on the specific circumstances of a matter that is live before the courts. Your interpretation of the sub judice rule is correct. The provisions of continuing resolution 10 are clear and unambiguous and your ruling should be upheld.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.25): The Greens will not be supporting the dissent motion. I believe that the continuing resolution is quite clear. It is interesting that this is the second time this has come up recently; we have examined this in recent times. The issue we might have is that there is a disagreement about the continuing resolution. I think that the issue is not in the application of the continuing resolution.
I will make a couple of observations. Firstly, the motion Mrs Dunne has brought forward today is a very general motion about bail. I think it is quite possible to discuss the matters that Mrs Dunne is concerned about and have a discussion about bail in the ACT without needing to discuss the specifics of this particular case that is being referred to or the specifics of the individual accused in this case. It would be quite possible for Mrs Dunne to be more circumspect about the matters and still be able to discuss the issue that is of concern to her. In that sense, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that your ruling, in exercising the discretion of the chair, is quite an appropriate exercise of that discretion.
The motion has not been brought to discuss the specific case; that is quite clear. Nor is the motion actually suggesting reform of the Bail Act. The motion is almost a question on notice. In that context, Madam Deputy Speaker, your exercise of discretion is quite appropriate as well, because it is possible to discuss the matters raised in Mrs Dunne’s motion without needing to go through the individual criminal history of the person concerned.
Returning to the continuing resolution, I think that it is quite clear. This resolution was only adopted in 2008, so it is quite recent in the history of the Assembly. It says:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video