Page 5504 - Week 13 - Thursday, 17 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
to get support, they need to come and put their case to us and not with about seven minutes to go before we are coming into this house. As I said, this is an incredibly serious matter. It should be dealt with seriously, and I cannot help but feel a lack of a serious approach is being taken by the Canberra Liberals.
On the argument being put forward about the meaning of the public statements made by the DPP, this is not an argument about the behaviour of the Attorney-General in regard to misleading the Assembly. It appears to boil down to the meaning of one word—flexibility. What did the DPP mean when he said to the committee on 22 July 2009 that there is plenty of flexibility available to sentencing judges in relation to sentences for both manslaughter and murder?
We are having an argument about what the attorney takes that to mean and what Mrs Dunne takes that to mean. Really, this is boiling down to a different interpretation from two members. There are comments on the public record, and political interpretation can always be applied to what things mean. But it comes down to a simple matter of interpretation—a different interpretation between the Attorney-General and Mrs Dunne.
This difference of opinion on the interpretation of the evidence given by the DPP to the JACS inquiry is a political matter; it is not a matter of contempt of the Assembly. It is hard to feel that this is anything more than politicking that we are seeing this morning. I wonder about the timing, also, as to why this has been brought on at this time when we know there is a very full agenda this morning with some extremely important matters on the table.
We have high expectations about the government as far as how they will take or use statements made by public officials or statutory office holders is concerned. We need to be very careful about how that information is restated or how it may be used. We should value their evidence and use it very carefully, but we must be very cautious about how we use that evidence to support our respective political positions.
In this case, though—and I put it quite clearly—I do not believe the Attorney-General’s interpretation is in any way unreasonable. I believe it is a reasonable interpretation. Some may say that it pushes a boundary. But, at the end of the day, it is a reasonable interpretation. But let us be clear—this is a difference of opinion between two members about the interpretation of a statutory office holder’s statements to an inquiry.
We will not support this censure. Mrs Dunne has talked in her speech about wasting our time, and on a day that is so full, where there are so many important matters to get to at this time, we are sitting here debating a difference of opinion on interpretation between two members, which, as I said, is a political matter. It should not be used in this sort of way.
The Greens will not be supporting this censure motion. We will get to the business of the Assembly today, and if this is some sort of tactic to try and put off what is on the table, I can tell you that the Greens are prepared to stay here until all the business is done.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video