Page 5498 - Week 13 - Thursday, 17 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR CORBELL: They are the ones who have the track record of fabricating censure motions in this place, fabricating outrage, fabricating allegations where none exist.
I appreciate the psychosocial analysis I received from Mrs Dunne earlier but I will take my own counsel about my own approach to life in the world and I will not seek to make comments about Mrs Dunne or others on the other side of this place. It is very interesting that of course when they cannot sustain an argument around the facts, they go for the personal attack, they go for the commentary on my psychological approach to life, they go for some commentary about what I need to feel gratified in life. I know what I need, and I do not need that advice from those opposite. But it just shows how vacuous and absurd this censure motion is today. They do not like it either, I have to say.
Mr Hanson: On a point of order.
MR SPEAKER: One moment, thank you, Mr Corbell. Stop the clocks.
Mr Hanson: Mrs Dunne’s motion deals with a very specific issue. When she gave her speech it was very much focused on the detailed evidence and quotes from Hansard. Mr Corbell has had a couple of minutes already and he has not actually gone to the point of the censure. He is not actually talking about the evidence and the detailed case that has been read out. He is simply attacking. I would ask him to be to relevant to the debate. He is essentially verballing in the statements that he made of the DPP and I ask him to be relevant to the case.
MR SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Mrs Dunne saw fit to dwell on the attorney’s motivations, and I think it is fair for the attorney to respond to that.
Members interjecting—
MR SPEAKER: Order, members.
MR CORBELL: They can dish it but they cannot take it. It is as simple as that. They can dish it but they cannot take it. And, quite frankly, it highlights the paucity and the weakness of their argument that, when they cannot substantiate the claim and the facts, they have to go to personal attack and the personal commentary on me and my attributes or my psychological motivations. I think the record will speak for itself about the way the Liberals approach these matters.
Let us turn specifically to the claims made by the Mrs Dunne. Yesterday I was asked a question about this matter in question time and I tabled a detailed written answer. I will simply draw members’ attention to one element. Indeed it is that quote from the Hansard that Mrs Dunne did not read in her so-called detailed exposition from the Hansard. But surely not! Surely Mrs Dunne would not not mention this element! But I draw to the Assembly’s attention the comment from Mr White in relation to the evidence he gave during the standing committee’s inquiry into the Crimes (Murder) Amendment Bill where he said, very clearly:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video