Page 494 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 10 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Speaker, these comments did not come from some yob mouthing off in the pub. They were deliberate, calculated and done for maximum effect on prime time TV, and they were done repeatedly. It is bad enough if a citizen expresses views like this, but it is worse if a member of this place does so, because we have a special charge to uphold the law.
It is even worse, Mr Speaker, when these comments are made by someone like the Attorney-General. We have to make it perfectly plain, Mr Speaker, that the person who made these comments is no neophyte member just starting out on his way, just learning the ropes. This breach was perpetrated by a five-term veteran of this place who has been placed in one of the highest positions you can aspire to, one of the highest positions of trust in this territory, that of the first law officer, that of the Attorney-General.
The question before us today, Mr Speaker, is what should the members of this place do to bring our colleague into line? This may look like a technical breach. It may be that he forgot the forms and it was an accident. But we are not dealing with a member who just slipped up; we are dealing with a member who repeatedly made these statements, and he did so with malice aforethought, and he is not just an ordinary member.
This Attorney-General went out of his way, as I have said, on two separate occasions. When the ABC followed this matter up, there was no way that this man was going to check what he had said. He did not decline to comment. He did not come out with a comment about perhaps what he had said that morning being inappropriate. He came out and did everything to indicate what his views were. He did nothing to indicate, and has done nothing since then to indicate, that he regretted what he said, what he said was unfortunate, what he said was not appropriate for the circumstances, or what he said may have compromised or may have influenced the matters before the court.
The Attorney-General has flagrantly disregarded the laws and conventions in relation to the contempt of court for base political motives. He has tried to deflect attention from his and his colleagues’ failing in relation to the operation of the BRC. The Attorney-General has ignored the Human Rights Act and the Attorney-General has ignored the body of law that upholds a right to a fair trial.
Mr Speaker, this Attorney-General has failed all the standards set out in the ministerial code of conduct for the highest standards of probity and integrity. As a result of this, this Assembly must express serious concern about the behaviour of the Attorney-General.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (3.26): Mr Speaker, there are several points I wish to make on this motion expressing concern in relation to things I said in a media interview on 3 February this year. There are many times when those in public life express themselves indelicately, or with less specificity or cogency than intended. In politics, and I think that covers all of us, particularly in ministerial positions, we end up giving interviews daily, uttering hundreds or thousands of words on the public record every time we do so, and we are often put on the spot.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .