Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 12 Hansard (18 November) . . Page.. 4171 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

We would not be arguing about the degree of murder, whether it was a big murder or a little murder, whether it was a bad murder or a good murder, if there is such a thing-it is murder. In this case, it is contempt; there is no degree. If it is the will of the Assembly to set a precedent today by saying that there are degrees of contempt, we will be setting a precedent, not just for us, but for all those that follow parliamentary practice in the way that we do. I think that by not finding in favour of a motion of no confidence in the minister we would be setting up this place as a house of farce and saying that we have standards that mean absolutely nothing. It is important to take into account the standing of the Assembly in this regard. We must truly consider the position of this place and actually do hold people accountable for things they do.

Much is made and much was said of Mr Corbell coming down and apologising. Mr Corbell only came down and apologised when he was actually facing the prospect of being the subject of a committee inquiry. Let's go back to when the motion was moved that the committee be established. The unanimous recommendation of the Estimates Committee was that a contempt committee be established. All sides of this house agreed that something needed to be investigated and that that committee should determine whether a contempt existed. Everyone was interested; everyone agreed equally.

Mr Corbell had some time between the tabling of that report and the moving of the motion to come down and apologise to this place for what he had done. Did he take that opportunity? No, he did not. He waited until a minute to midnight to come down and say, "Okay, I was wrong. You don't need to do the contempt thing because I've admitted that I was wrong and I will never do it again."But it does not work like that. We set standards and we set precedents by what we do in this place every day and, if we do not adhere to those standards and those precedents, we undermine the system, we ignore the system, and we actually do what Mr Quinlan is afraid of, that is, we lose the struggle for community respect. Basically, we would be saying, "Yes, he is guilty of contempt, but who cares? It was a minor infraction."No, it was not a minor infraction.

When the committee tabled its report, I asked my office to check with the Clerk of the House of Representatives, Mr Harris, on the seriousness of the issue. Mr Harris rang back and spoke to my chief of staff. He said, "Clearly, the well known example is the Profumo affair where a minister was found guilty of contempt and the minister resigned before the house could find him guilty of grave contempt."The advice from Mr Harris was that it is a very serious offence and the house would suffer if it did not punish a contempt. Indeed, it is his view that not to do so would undermine the authority of the house.

I would put to Mr Quinlan that if he agrees, as he has, that, according to paragraph 3.40, the committee has found that Mr Corbell was in contempt of the Assembly, and if he is afraid of this place being diminished in the eyes of the public, then, if he is true to his own words, he should vote for want of confidence by this place in Minister Corbell.

Mr Wood: Did you get this report early? You said that you sought some advice when it was tabled. That was 10 minutes ago. Is that another contempt?

MR SMYTH: Yes, I asked them to ring and calls have been exchanged. You saw my chief of staff come into this place and give the attendant a note and the attendant bring

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .