Page 5496 - Week 13 - Thursday, 17 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
created a problem for me.” The DPP was as good as his word. He said in relation to murder: “I will not pontificate; I will not express a view on sentences. I will take the matter up in the court, because that is my job. If I have a problem, I will then raise it with the Legislative Assembly.” That is exactly what he did.
The attorney made these comments on 27 October. They were so surprising to me that I had to go back and refresh my memory as to what Mr White said back in 2009. There was such a stark contrast between what Mr White actually said and what the attorney claimed he said that Mr Doszpot came in here and asked a question. He asked the minister whether he could point to where the DPP had made this statement. Because the attorney had said that he had subsequently reinforced this view, Mr Doszpot asked whether he could table for the information of the Assembly where the DPP had reinforced this so-called view. Mr Corbell said, “I will take that on notice; that was such a long time ago.” The last sitting week was such a long time ago! He said, “It was such a long time ago I cannot possibly answer.” He could speak with authority on 27 October about the DPP’s views back in 2009, but the day before yesterday he could not.
I was extraordinarily surprised that, when we got to the detail stage of the crimes sentencing bill yesterday, the attorney used almost exactly the same words that he used on 17 October. In the detail stage in the debate on clause 5, he said:
… despite the fact that the DPP has stated that the current penalty is appropriate in giving evidence to the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety in its inquiry into the Crimes (Murder) Amendment Bill 2008. The DPP has since confirmed that there is no reason for a change to the penalty for the offence of manslaughter.
Obviously Mr Doszpot thought that Mr Corbell had gone away after his question and satisfied himself that he was right. He did repeat it, and when he repeated it I was so surprised I actually said across the chamber, “Are you sure you want to repeat that, minister?” He continued to repeat it. Mr Doszpot came in here again yesterday and asked the questions. Mr Corbell twisted and wriggled and tried to get off the hook. And, Mr Speaker, you heard him selectively quoting from what the DPP said in 2009 to the justice and community safety committee.
I have given you a full exposition of what the DPP said in relation to manslaughter. I could read the whole eight or nine pages of Hansard, but that would be a waste of our time. The attorney yesterday attempted to selectively quote from the DPP’s comments.
Members interjecting—
MR SPEAKER: Thank you, members.
MRS DUNNE: He could not at any stage point to anything where the DPP said that he was satisfied with the current penalty. He could not do it, Mr Speaker. You heard him, Ms Hunter heard him and Ms Porter heard him. He could not do it because the DPP has never done it in public or in private to me. I would suggest that if he has not done it in public, he is not prepared to do it in private. He has, on a number of occasions, expressed the view that it is not his job to have such a view. It is his job to tell us when things go wrong.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video