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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 12 Hansard (18 November) . . Page.. 4179 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

the motion, as amended by Mrs Cross, is making a statement of grave concern about Mr Corbell's approach to the committee and the importance and role of committees in the Legislative Assembly. He has obviously thought about that and has apologised for his actions. That is also something that has to be taken into account. As I understand it, that was the thinking of the committee, although, as I said, they have not gone into a great deal of detail about why they did that in recommendation 2.

Even though contempt has been found, I do not think you can have serious or not serious contempts: there is a contempt or there is not a contempt. Not having a lot of time, although we have this motion to debate, I am arguing about whether I would have found contempt because the culpable intention was not there. Taking that into consideration now, I am prepared to support Mrs Cross's amendment because I think it is taking action.

It is a form of discipline that Mr Smyth has said he wants to see taken by this Assembly. Mr Smyth has a concern that, in some way, if we do not support this want of confidence motion, this Assembly will be seen to be lacking power or not taking a responsible attitude to the role of the executive and how it works with the parliament and the committees. I do not agree with that. I think that, by making a statement here today expressing grave concern and by forcing Mr Corbell to apologise on several occasions about his conduct, this Assembly has held the executive and, in this case, Mr Corbell, accountable.

It is through the debate that we are having today-I am glad to see that no-one opposed its occurrence and that leave was given to have this debate-that it has been raised, as well as through a whole committee process. This Assembly has, in fact, taken very strong steps and appropriately used the mechanisms available to it to challenge Mr Corbell's performance as a minister regarding his response to the committee's request for information. However, as I said, it is nothing like the situation that we dealt with before, which looked at serious, culpable intention and serious impediments to the work of the committee. You cannot really argue that that is the case here, even though the committee did end up finding Mr Corbell in contempt.

In conclusion, I will be supporting Mrs Cross's amendment. Thank you.

MR CORNWELL (11.43): Mr Speaker, it is important that we are having this debate today, in spite of the comments of some other members. We have now had an Assembly for something like 14 years. I think it fair to say that, within that time, we have not always covered ourselves with glory. We have certainly not impressed upon the people of the ACT that we are a fully fledged parliament with parliamentary powers at our disposal, and that those powers should apply equally to the people we represent coming before us and to ministers of this Assembly or its members. Contempt is contempt.

If we read the report we find, at point 3.34:

What could be more contemptuous to a committee of this Assembly than a blanket refusal by a minister to answer a reasonable question put to that minister, a question that I suggest could have been anticipated?

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