Page 5500 - Week 13 - Thursday, 17 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
accountability measures. This claim is without substance, without foundation, and the censure cannot be accepted.
Mr Coe interjecting—
MR SPEAKER: One moment, Mr Corbell. Mr Coe, I have now had to speak to you twice in the last three minutes. You are warned for repeated interjecting. Mr Seselja, you have the floor.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (10.27): In response to Mr Corbell complaining that he is facing another censure motion today, we will do a deal. We will stop moving censure motions against you, Simon, when you start telling the truth. You start telling the truth, Mr Corbell, and we will not move another censure motion. There is the deal, and that is the unfortunate reality with this minister. He has incapacity, it seems, to tell the truth. And we see it time and time again, and that is why we are here again today—not because of some agenda of smearing Mr Corbell but because he keeps saying things which are not true. He says them over and over. He repeats them. He refuses to withdraw them. And it is appropriate that we hold him to account for his statements.
It is appropriate that we hold him to account when he seeks to hide behind the DPP to justify his views. He hides behind the DPP because he cannot substantiate his arguments. That is unacceptable. Argue what you like as to what a sentence should be but do not claim the DPP has said something when he simply has not said it. It does Mr Corbell no credit and it is disrespectful to the Director of Public Prosecutions in the ACT. In fact, the Director of Public Prosecutions has given exactly the opposite indication in his public statements to what Mr Corbell claims. He has said he does not want to give comments on the appropriateness of sentences. So we go to what Mr Corbell has said and then we go and we compare that and contrast that with what the DPP said. The facts are there on the table.
I will get to Mr Corbell’s defence in just a moment. Mr Corbell said:
Mrs Dunne’s bill proposes to increase the maximum penalty for the offence of manslaughter, despite the fact that the DPP has said the current penalty is appropriate …
in giving evidence to the very committee inquiry that Mrs Dunne says is the basis for the recommendation to increase the manslaughter penalty. And it goes on:
The DPP has since confirmed that there is no reason for a change to the penalty for the offence of manslaughter.
Let us look at what the DPP said. Let us put the facts on the table. He said:
I am independent of government, and accordingly I must leave matters of criminal law policy to the government and ultimately to the Assembly. However, it will generally be appropriate for me to highlight the practical implications of the proposed legislation, particularly in relation to matters which are of obvious importance to my Office.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video