Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2011 Week 13 Hansard (Wednesday, 16 November 2011) . . Page.. 5400 ..


MR SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Smyth. We are up to Mr Doszpot asking a supplementary to his question.

MR DOSZPOT: Attorney, what further information came to hand since yesterday, when it was not at hand, that would enable you to repeat the claim this morning?

MR CORBELL: Officers of my directorate, in formulating the government’s proposal earlier this year in relation to the murder and manslaughter matters and also to increasing maximum penalties for intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm and culpable driving offences, specifically raised the issue of manslaughter with Mr White. Mr White’s response was a nuanced one. Regardless, Mr White’s response was he did not have an issue with the penalty for manslaughter.

I am advised that he went on to say that it is completely appropriate for the maximum penalty for manslaughter and intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm to be the same because they have very similar degrees of seriousness. The consequences of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm can potentially be as serious as those for manslaughter. In addition, in the case of manslaughter, a person is grossly negligent about whether death would be caused—

Mr Seselja interjecting

MR CORBELL: and in the case of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm, the person intentionally inflicts the very serious harm.

It is clear from a review of the committee inquiry into the murder bill that the director made very specific statements about the maximum penalty for manslaughter and other maximum penalties, and I reject any assertion that I have misled the Assembly in relation to the director’s comments.

Mr Hargreaves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Mr Seselja said across the chamber in interjection, “You’re making it up.” That is unparliamentary. That is insinuating that the minister is not telling the truth. Therefore, he should be asked to withdraw that comment.

Mrs Dunne: On the point of order, Mr Speaker, no-one could construe “making it up” as an accusation of telling a lie.

Members interjecting—

MR SPEAKER: Order, members! Mrs Dunne has the floor.

Mrs Dunne: Mr Barr just made a point in support of my point of order. When someone is on their feet and putting together an argument, that can be construed as “making it up”. It is not necessarily pejorative to say that someone is “making it up”.

MR SPEAKER: I am looking at House of Representatives Practice. I think I have quoted this one before to members, reminding them of this finding from the Senate in


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video