Page 2908 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 14 August 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
As you are aware, Madam Speaker, earlier this morning I raised a point of order in relation to sub judice, given that the matter has been lodged for appeal with the Federal Court, as to whether or not the motion contravenes the Assembly’s sub judice provisions. Your ruling was that members should be warned of that provision and that the debate can occur as long as members are cautious in respect of the Assembly’s continuing resolution No 10.
I wish to seek further advice, given that the majority of the debate has been conducted, in respect of paragraph 3(b) in particular in Ms Cody’s motion. Whilst it is an expression of opinion of the Assembly that the NDIS facilitate both sex therapy and sex work under the NDIS, that is the crux of the appeal that has been lodged with the Federal Court.
Whilst it is only an expression of opinion, I think that there is certainly substantial thought on whether or not that would contravene the sub judice rule or, worse, be in contempt of the Federal Court. I would point you and other members to paragraph 10.92 in the companion to the standing orders.
MADAM SPEAKER: Sorry, Mr Wall, are you referring to paragraph 3(b)—
Mr Wall: Particularly 3(b).
MADAM SPEAKER: which calls on a tripartisan statement of support?
Mr Wall: Yes, correct.
MADAM SPEAKER: And what is your reference in the companion?
Mr Wall: Paragraph 10.92 of the companion to the standing orders, which is a reference to Odgers, by which we are tied through our standing orders. It quotes the remarks of Spender J of the Federal Court where he states:
… 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 continues on, but the critical point there is whether or not it influences the court. If so, it could be considered a contempt of the court. It is certainly my opinion that we are probably treading very close to contravening this sub judice. There are probably a couple of options that I suggest. One might be that we adjourn this matter and allow Ms Cody to consider an amendment, which would allow the motion to pass without contravening, or we adjourn it until a later hour.
MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you. There are going to be other comments on this point of order. I will hear Ms Stephen-Smith and then Mr Rattenbury in that order.
Ms Stephen-Smith: I think I made very clear in my contribution to the debate that the rules for the NDIS supports for participants are category A rules that are made by the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video