Page 508 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 10 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
tells us that his defence is, “Well, they haven’t been charged.” That does not mean that he did not prejudice the case.
Mr Stanhope: One out of six. Only one out of six. What do the rest of you secretly think?
MR SESELJA: That does not mean that he did not prejudice the case.
Mr Stanhope: Who do you back? Mr Hanson’s view or Mr Seselja’s view? Whose position, Mr Seselja’s—it’s a waste of money—or Mr Hanson’s to get on with it?
MR SESELJA: Even in his interjections—it is difficult to speak over him, Mr Speaker—he refuses to defend his Attorney-General.
Mr Stanhope: Whose position do you back today? Mr Seselja’s or Mr Hanson’s?
MR SESELJA: He knows he got it wrong. The Chief Minister knows he got it wrong. We want him on the record.
Mr Stanhope: Mr Seselja said a waste of time; Mr Hanson said get on with it.
MR SPEAKER: Order! Chief Minister, please stop interrupting. Mr Seselja.
MR SESELJA: Thank you, Mr Speaker. He can come down in the adjournment debate and tell us his defence of Mr Corbell, why he believes that Mr Corbell got it right and why he believes that Mr Corbell acted reasonably as the first law officer. The first law officer has a responsibility higher than that of a journalist and higher even than that of an ordinary member of parliament to uphold the law and to ensure that justice is done and justice is seen to be done and that the right to a fair trial is not prejudiced.
We see the rank hypocrisy from Mr Corbell who waxes lyrical about human rights. But when he has the opportunity to put that into practice, he refuses. He is happy to prejudice the right to a fair trial because it is politically convenient. That is what this was about; it was politically convenient. If it had been an inadvertent error, whilst that still would have been serious, if he had made amends that would have been a far more reasonable course of action. People could understand that it was an error which was quickly corrected. He arrogantly refused to do that, and now his best defence and the only defence that has been offered by anyone in the government is that the people involved had not been charged.
Of course, that is contrary to what he actually told listeners of ABC radio, which he used as a vehicle to declare these people guilty. He declared them guilty. He said the government’s view is that they are guilty. The very thing that they were likely to be charged with—he said they had been charged—he said they were guilty of. He said there was no doubt, and he left listeners in absolutely no doubt as to what the right verdict should be—that is, they are guilty. That is not how our legal system works.
Mr Speaker, we should actually look at the other area of hypocrisy here. It has been Mr Corbell in the past in this place who has sought to shut down questioning on any matter vaguely associated with court matters. We have seen it time and time again, because it is inconvenient to the government. Even when we are talking about major
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .