Page 509 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 10 February 2009

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

---

civil matters in other jurisdictions, where a panel of Supreme Court judges is hardly likely to be influenced by mere comment in the Assembly, which should be the pinnacle of free speech, Mr Corbell has been at the forefront of shutting down our right to free speech. Then the Attorney-General, not practising what he preaches, goes on radio and on television and prejudices the trial of these two individuals.

This is behaviour that deserves to be condemned by the Assembly. We understand that the Greens will be supporting the motion, and we thank them for that support. It is reasonable that we hold the minister to account. It is clearly inappropriate behaviour. It is behaviour which the Chief Minister could not even bring himself to defend. We look forward to the Chief Minister, having not spoken in favour of Mr Corbell, actually voting with us on this.

The reason that Jon Stanhope could not and would not defend the Attorney-General is because he knows as a former Attorney-General that this is poor behaviour. It is inappropriate behaviour and is potentially prejudicial behaviour. That is why this motion should go ahead. Mr Corbell stands condemned for his behaviour, his failure to apologise, his failure to make amends and his very poor efforts to defend his behaviour.

Motion (by Ms Hunter) put:

That the question be now put.

The Assembly voted—

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That Mrs Dunne’s motion be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .