GREENPEACE KIRRIBILLI HOUSE PROTEST
The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, who would have been aware that last month 17 protesters invaded the Sydney residence of the Prime Minister. Is the Attorney General aware that on Tuesday, 18 November, Magistrate Scott Mitchell at North Sydney Local Court let those people off with no conviction recorded and he imposed only a good behaviour bond with court costs of $51 dollars for each offender, after a plea of guilty was lodged by all involved? Is the Attorney General also aware that the magistrate condoned the protesters’ illegal activity by commenting "Australia would be a much duller place if protesters were not allowed their freedom of speech"? While I support freedom of speech I would like to know whether the Attorney General approves of the protesters’ behaviour, the lenient decision of the magistrate and the magistrate’s comment condoning the home invasion that took place. Does the Attorney General intend to take action on this issue? If not, does this characterise the Government’s soft approach to law and order?
Page 2180
The Hon. J. W. SHAW: It is an obvious error to attribute to the Government a discretionary decision made by a judicial officer such as a magistrate. It is an elementary proposition in our system of government that judges and magistrates are entirely independent of government. That flows from the doctrine of the separation of powers. The honourable member should not assume that any observations made by a magistrate, no doubt obiter dicta, represent the policy or approach of the Government. I do not condone the activities of those demonstrators. I think that even politicians are entitled to the private enjoyment of their houses. But I need to consider Mr Mitchell’s observations in their full context. I will certainly take steps to ask that I be provided with his reasons for his decision in order that I might better comprehend precisely his reasoning process.