Page 5506 - Week 13 - Thursday, 17 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The case has been made that we are using up valuable time, that the government has got work to get through. This place rose at 10 minutes to 11 on Tuesday because the government had run out of work for that day. So let us not run this line that we have got so much to do that we should not be doing this. We should do what is right and just for this place.
I look forward to getting to the privileges committee’s report in a few moments because I am the one that called for that committee. I am quite happy to get to the disallowance when we get to it as well because I am the one that put it on the notice paper. The opposition are the ones who have always said, “Let’s sit for as long as it takes to do our business because that’s our function in this place.” But it is those opposite on the crossbench who are always happy to go home.
It seems to be that the word “flexibility” is the key point in Mr Corbell’s defence. But members need to read what Mr Corbell said yesterday in his answer to a question on notice. Let me read you the final paragraph:
It is clear from a review of the committee inquiry into the murder bill that the director made very specific statements—
I repeat: statements—
about the maximum penalty for manslaughter and other maximum penalties …
Where are these statements? Mr Corbell has quoted one word, “flexibility”. Mr Corbell, we will give you leave to stand again and quote all of the statements that you care to quote. You will not, because you cannot, because they are not there. Mr Corbell said, “Mrs Dunne didn’t read the sentence before the sentence she read.” Well, Mr Corbell did not read the paragraph before that because it does not suit his purpose; it does not make his case. It is quite clear. You, Mr Speaker, asked a question and at the end of the paragraph you say, “The issue is more that we have a problem of inadequate penalties.” You say:
Does the DPP have a view on that?
What is the answer? I quote:
With respect, that is conflating two issues. Cassidy is a good example of a very severe penalty for manslaughter. I think Cassidy was sentenced to 15 years, with 10 years on the bottom, from memory. But sentences for manslaughter can range from that sort of range right down to, in some instances, bonds, and immediate release without imprisonment, depending on the circumstances of the manslaughter.
Here is Mr Corbell’s defence line:
There is plenty of flexibility available to sentencing judges in relation to sentences for both manslaughter and murder.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video