Page 5499 - Week 13 - Thursday, 17 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
There is plenty of flexibility available to sentencing judges in relation to sentences for both manslaughter and murder.
He made quite clear his views about the adequacy of the sentencing options available to judicial officers in relation to those offences. That is a clear and plain statement.
Further to that, as I indicated in the written answer that I provided yesterday, officers from my directorate have been engaged in direct discussions with the DPP. And I advised the Assembly yesterday, in writing—clearly the Liberals have not read it, because if they had read it they would know that their claim of censure today is completely without foundation—very clearly that Mr White’s advice to my directorate was that he did “not have an issue with the penalty for manslaughter”.
So let us be very clear about the position today. The position today is as I have stated yesterday, is as I have stated previously. The DPP has made very clear his views about the adequacy of the sentencing options in relation to the offence of manslaughter.
I am not putting words into the mouth of the DPP. I am not attributing claims to the DPP that he has not made. I am quoting directly and accurately from the advice that the DPP has given to both the standing committee in evidence and indirectly to officers of my directorate. Where is the argument? There is no argument around this censure, none whatsoever.
Maybe there is some other motivation for two censure motions in two days in this place. Maybe it is because they are embarrassed about other matters that they have to deal with today. Maybe it is because they do not want to get to matters such as the disallowance of the Auditor-General’s appointment. Maybe that is a reason to delay bringing that very important matter on today. I do not know what the motivation is, but clearly the motivation cannot be the substantial matter that they claim it is today. Clearly it cannot be cannot be that.
Maybe it is simply that Mrs Dunne is sensitive because she has not been able to convince this place that we should increase the penalty for manslaughter. She has been on that train in relation to increasing the penalty for manslaughter since 2008. She tried to get the committee to agree to it. The committee made recommendations. The government did not agree. And this Assembly has not agreed in relation to the substantive offence of manslaughter. So quite simply, there is no substance to this allegation, none whatsoever.
Mr Coe interjecting—
MR CORBELL: Maybe the motivation is: if you throw enough mud, some of it is going to stick. Maybe that is the motivation. I am sure we are going to see plenty more censure motions between now and the beginning of the caretaker period next year, because clearly the Liberals’ agenda here is simply to throw mud, to make unsubstantiated claims. But all they do in these approaches is debase the forms of this Assembly, debase the mechanisms available to this Assembly in relation to real
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video