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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 12 Hansard (18 November) . . Page.. 4172 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

the note down to me. It is not hard to get clear advice. It is not a murky issue; it is a black and white issue. This one is a very clear issue. The clear issue is that contempt has been found.

Mr Quinlan's other defence in objection to what Mr Stefaniak had said was that Mr Stefaniak had said that it was not the role of the committee to determine what the punishment should be. Mr Quinlan said that it was, otherwise for some odd reason all committees would be neutered. If Mr Quinlan reads the resolution of appointment he will see that it simply asks the committee to examine the refusal of Mr Corbell to answer the questions and determine whether it constitutes a contempt of the Assembly. The resolution of appointment of the committee that was passed by this Assembly does not say anywhere that the committee should also determine what the punishment may or may not be. That is not the right of the committee; it is actually the right of this Assembly. It gets back to what we are doing here today, Mr Speaker.

What are we establishing? We are establishing the most dangerous of precedents that says the executive are not accountable; that they can do whatever they want, they can be found guilty of breaching the rules, they can be found guilty of contempt, but we as an Assembly do not have any power or choose not to exercise any power to bring them to task. That is the important issue here today. It is the setting of a principle, it is the setting of a precedent, that says that the executive have unfettered power. They do not. This Assembly appoints a chief minister and the chief minister appoints the executive. There is a clear line there, Mr Speaker, that must be respected.

Let's go to the issue of the objection not being significant. Apparently, it is now the fault of the committee for not following up on what happened: we did not object enough; we did not protest enough; we did not do enough; it is our fault that Mr Corbell committed a contempt and we did not do anything about it. First and foremost, the Estimates Committee can only recommend, as we did, that a possible contempt be inquired into. We had no power to determine whether there was a contempt. That is for a special committee, a privileges committee. The Privileges Committee has done so.

Mr Quinlan said that there was a recall date. Mr Corbell had already put the numbers out. There was no purpose; the debate had been had well and truly in the public as to the effect of these numbers and the consequences for the waiting list. To say that somehow it was almost the committee's fault has to be the most spurious argument ever put forward. It is a most disingenuous argument put forward by somebody who has lots of debating skills and who knows normally how to put an argument together. The question is: who is responsible to whom? It is a question of whether the executive is accountable. If we believe that contempt can be found but no action is taken, we have neutered this place to such a degree that it will have absolutely no respect from anyone into the future. We would set a dangerous precedent that may, in years to come, appear in House of Representatives Practice that says the ACT Assembly once found a contempt, that there was a unanimous decision of a committee that a contempt had occurred, and did not do anything about it. That is absolutely ridiculous.

The apology is also important. Much has been made by Mr Quinlan that Mr Corbell came down and apologised. I think that that is important. I know that I am going over ground that I have already covered briefly, but you have to look at the whole timing of

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