Page 495 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 10 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
On 3 February, I was confronted with a situation involving issues of great interest to the public. The men on the roof of the remand centre created a media storm, one that could not be separated from the issues and events of earlier weeks involving conditions in the remand centre. During an interview with Ross Solly on 666 ABC on the morning of 3 February this year, I relayed to the Canberra public my understanding of advice provided to me by ACT Policing and ACT Corrective Services. I also expressed an opinion on that advice. Of course, that is something we do every day in politics. Indeed, some would say that that is our job.
I would like to refute, though, the claims by Mrs Dunne that I have done something which is sub judice or is a contempt of court. Indeed, the individuals, when I made my comments, had not been charged; the matter had not gone to court; and any suggestion that there has been a contempt of court is simply incorrect. I accept, however, that as a rule we politicians should be wary of expressing any opinions about a matter before a court or about to come before a court.
It is important to note that while criminal charges were imminent at the time of my comments, the individuals had not been before a court. This situation was an unusual one in that it involved me commenting not only on a potential criminal matter but also one that integrally involved the operations of a facility within the Corrective Services portfolio, which I was acting minister in. It was also a matter of intense and legitimate media and public interest.
I will say in my defence that this was not a case of a politician taking advantage of public interest in a high profile criminal matter to score political points. I was merely commenting on an operational matter, one well within my ministerial obligations to inform the public on matters of legitimate public interest to them. I should also say that I had gone on the radio to talk about issues pertaining to Quamby, not the issue involving the two detainees in BRC.
Mr Smyth: No, you rang the ABC—Mr Corbell has rung in.
MR CORBELL: That is not the case, Mr Speaker. I was invited onto 666 ABC to respond to comments made, that were about to be made, by the Human Rights Commissioner. I will also say in my defence that I did make it clear in the interview that this was a matter for the courts to determine. My comments obviously reflected the view taken by police and Corrective Services, but my statements were in no way intended to impact upon court proceedings or prejudice such matters.
However, Mr Speaker, I accept that certain particular aspects of my comments could be interpreted to have traversed the matters that potentially need to be decided by a court. While at the time of the comments the matter was not before a court and the men had not been charged, it was obviously undesirable for opinions to be expressed on those matters, given that they were potentially to be determined by a court. Mr Speaker, that is my perspective on the matter. I regret any inference that members draw from it, but I hope that provides a better explanation of the circumstances and the approach that I have sought to adopt.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (3.30): Before I start I would actually like to note that the Greens do not believe there was any malicious intent in Mr Corbell’s comments, and we do not agree with the statement which was made by Mrs Dunne.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .