Remorse and prospects of rehabilitation
46The offender gave genuine evidence of her remorse for her offences. That remorse is demonstrated in her further evidence to the ICAC on 5 and 6 May 2010 when the offender confessed her offences.
47It is of some concern that the offender has not consistently demonstrated an acceptance of her full criminality. For example, it has been noted that the offender gave evidence-in-chief in the sentencing proceedings which suggested that the SDR offences were committed through her lack of diligence in verifying the accuracy of the claims she signed and that the lack of diligence came about because she was so busy with her public duties and that she needed to trust her office manager, Mr Horan. This was despite her evidence that she began to have concerns about Mr Horan's work in 2006, when the offences began. Then, in later evidence, after the Court pointed to the admission in the later ICAC proceedings of signing the forms whilst knowing them to be false, the offender gave evidence that she had, at least in respect of some of the claims, signed them in direct knowledge of their falsity. She then clarified that some forms were blank when she signed them and the others were known by her to be false.
48The offender furthermore had been asked about her attitude to the offences by the author of the Pre-Sentence Report dated 9 August 2012 that is Exhibit 3. The offender denied her direct knowledge of the falsity of the claims when she signed them. The report states the following:
In relation to the "Make False Statement" offences, Mrs Paluzzano accepted responsibility for signing the documents which were false and admitted that she should not have signed the documents without ensuring the veracity of the information contained therein. However, she denied being aware at the time of signing, that the documents contained information later proved to be false. She claimed to have been under constant stress due to both the nature and volume of work which she was required to process as an MP, a situation exacerbated by difficulties she was experiencing in managing the difficult behaviour of a particular staff member. She also claimed to have been experiencing other pressing family responsibilities and personal ill-health during this period. Mrs Paluzzano claimed that because of these demands, she placed her trust in her electoral office staff members to ensure the accuracy and veracity of all documents submitted for her signature. She now accepts that she should have checked the veracity of the documents herself, before signing them.
49Equally, when the offender was interviewed by Dr Nielsen, there was no indication of the offender's direct knowledge of the falsity of the claims when she signed them. Dr Nielsen stated the following at page 2 of his report dated 7 August 2012 in Exhibit 5:
Ms Paluzzano said that she was too busy with parliamentary and electoral duties to keep abreast of the day to day running of her office.... She said that [Mr Horan] was responsible for managing the office and the decisions regarding the deployment of staff that were later the subject of the adverse finding by ICAC were actually made by him, although she agreed she was ultimately responsible and consented to the arrangement.
50The offender's earlier accounts of the offences, all made following her pleas of guilty, have the appearance of attempting to minimise the criminality without disclosing her more direct knowledge of the falsity with which she signed the SDR claims. The weight to be given to her remorse must be tempered by this apparent, repeated attempt to minimise or even deny her criminality. This in turn detracts from what might be otherwise seen as good prospects of rehabilitation.