Page 2197 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 9 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mrs Dunne has not referred to the case. She has not referred to the facts before the court—that may come before the court. She has not named the individual. She has referred to matters on the public record which are not at issue. They are not facts that are in issue in the court case, which she has not referred to. She is referring to matters on the public record. She can step outside and debate. She can go on radio and debate. She can write to the Canberra Times, and other individuals can write to the Canberra Times; they can write opinion pieces on this. There can be a vibrant, public debate on this. But in this Assembly, under the Labor Party and the Greens, there cannot be a debate on it.
We are abiding by the very strict and overly rigid provisions of this resolution. Now what we are seeing is an extension of the resolution where, even when you do not refer to the case, when you refer to something that happened years ago that may in some way be relevant to the case or not relevant to the case, you cannot talk about it. That is outrageous.
This is a matter that the community has a genuine and legitimate concern about. What we are being told today, by your ruling and by those on the other side, is that we cannot have these debates in the Assembly—that the debates that go on outside the chamber cannot go on in here.
If there were issues around the sub judice rule being breached, we would see the individuals who are discussing these types of matters hauled before the Supreme Court for contempt. Of course, we do not see that. We do not see that because the Supreme Court takes a very reasonable approach to these things. Notwithstanding that, if Mrs Dunne was actually referring to the case, the Supreme Court would still take a very reasonable approach to these things and would not be influenced by the fact that this may or may not be debated in a public forum or in the Assembly.
Mrs Dunne has not mentioned the case. She has not mentioned the facts of the case. She has deliberately steered away from making any judgements on what the courts will do and what final proceedings may or may not take place. She has done absolutely the right thing. It is absolutely ridiculous that we find ourselves in a situation now where, having not mentioned the case, having not mentioned the individual, having not mentioned the facts of the case, Mrs Dunne will be gagged from talking about bail and how bail laws are failing in this city.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we reject that completely. This is a gag order. Mrs Dunne will be able to walk out and say exactly what she has been gagged from saying here, and she will be able to say that in the public domain. If she was breaching sub judice, she would be hauled before the Supreme Court. But she will not be, because she is not even going close to doing that.
This is a manifestly wrong ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker—manifestly wrong. The speakers in favour of your ruling have not pointed to one word that Mrs Dunne has said which breaches this continuing resolution. We think it is unacceptable that the opposition should be gagged from raising what are matters of public importance. We should be able to have mature discussions about these things. When the facts at issue
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video