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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 12 Hansard (18 November) . . Page.. 4174 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

house would suffer if it did not punish a contempt, and if we do not find in the affirmative today for this motion that we lack confidence in Minister Corbell, we have diminished this place and we have diminished all of us, because we would be saying, "You can go and do whatever you want, if you are willing to bop back into the place at the last minute and say, 'Sorry, I got it wrong.'"That is not how it works. Ministers must be held responsible, members must be held responsible, all of us must be held responsible for what we do. I think that it is very important that we go for the ultimate sanction that he be found to lack the confidence of this Assembly and that he actually do resign.

That does raise the issue of the proposed ministerial code of conduct. This government has been in place now for some two years and we still do not have a ministerial code of conduct. Perhaps today we are finding out why that is. It is because the people opposite do not want to be judged against any standard. This minister will not be judged against any standard because the standard has not been set by the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister has left the chamber and debates on motions of no confidence are normally attended by all members and heard in silence because of the seriousness of the situation. (Extension of time granted.)

The question may well come back to what the Chief Minister will do. We have from the Labor members of the Estimates Committee a recommendation that contempt be looked at. We have a contempt committee formed by this Assembly saying that it has enough concern that the minister's action should be reviewed by a committee of his peers. That committee of his peers has unanimously found him guilty of contempt. The minister should go. I do not know how the day will unfold. I hope that the crossbenchers will hear the logic of these arguments and I hope that the crossbenchers will vote with us to find the minister guilty of want of confidence or lacking the confidence of this Assembly. If they do not, it will come back to the Chief Minister and the standard that he sets because he is the head of the executive, he is the one that appoints the ministers, he issues the warrants.

It will be interesting to see what standard Jon Stanhope sets himself, because he is on record over the last five years about standards under the Westminster system of government and how he respects those ongoing traditions, how we have to live by them and how ministers are responsible. The test today will not be only for Mr Corbell. The test today may well end up being for the Chief Minister as to whether his actions in the past were just lip-service to the Westminster system and he believes in it only when it suits his own purpose.

Mr Speaker, this is a serious motion. It is a serious motion because I believe that we should find that we have a lack of confidence in the Minister for Health. He has been found guilty of contempt by a committee of his peers. He should go. We should not be debating this matter. As soon as the report was tabled he should have done the honourable thing and stood up and resigned. He should have scribbled a note to his leader saying, "I will resign. I will save you the embarrassment of trying to defend me being found guilty of contempt by a committee of my peers."

But no, we have the dogged arrogance of him saying, "I can and will do whatever I want, whenever I want, because I'm not accountable."This is about accountability. It is about

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