Page 5493 - Week 13 - Thursday, 17 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Thursday, 17 November 2011
MR SPEAKER (Mr Rattenbury) took the chair at 10 am and asked members to stand in silence and pray or reflect on their responsibilities to the people of the Australian Capital Territory.
Attorney-General
Motion of censure
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (10.02), by leave: I move:
That this Assembly censures the Attorney-General for misleading the Assembly in relation to statements the Attorney-General made in the Assembly on 27 October 2011 and 16 November 2011, which he attributed to the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of the current maximum penalty for manslaughter.
It is unfortunate that we have to come in here again within 24 hours to seek to censure the Attorney-General for misleading. The Attorney-General has a very bad habit of being very loose with his words.
Members interjecting—
MR SPEAKER: All right, members.
MRS DUNNE: He has a very bad habit of being very loose with his words and not being prepared to take back when he makes a mistake. Therefore we will continue to take it up to him and hold him accountable. It is most important that we do this here today.
The Attorney-General, over the period of a couple of sitting weeks, has basically tried to seek succour for his position. It is a perfectly debatable position, and he is entitled to hold his views about the penalties in relation to manslaughter, but he has sought to seek authority from other people when that authority does not exist. He sought to seek authority from the Director of Public Prosecutions when the Director of Public Prosecutions has gone out of his way not to have a view on this subject. It is absolutely improper for members of the government to try and hide behind public officials when they do something wrong.
Mr Coe: Like he did yesterday.
MRS DUNNE: He did it yesterday and he has done it again here today.
The Attorney-General and I disagree about the penalty for manslaughter. It is an arguable point. One can take examples from precedent and other things about why you should do this, but it is not proper for the Attorney-General to attribute to a senior statutory officeholder comments that he did not make.
The litany of this is quite simple and the records are straightforward. On 27Â October Mr Corbell spoke in debate here in relation to the Crimes (Certain Penalty Increases)
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video