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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 12 Hansard (18 November) . . Page.. 4182 ..

MRS DUNNE (continuing):

The document was there. It was not in the minister's possession, but the document was there and that information could have been provided.

The minister brushed the official away when that person went rifling through the papers to produce the document that existed and was in the room on the day. He said, "No, you may not have it."The reason that the minister said that was that he wanted to avoid questioning.

The Estimates Committee came into this place-and I will give you a time line, Mr Quinlan-at 10.36 on 17 June. Mr Smyth presented his report, which contained a recommendation that we consider whether or not a Privileges Committee be established, at 10.36 am on 17 June. This was debated and listed on and off for the rest of that sitting fortnight. It was eventually debated on 26 June. At not one minute to midnight, Mr Smyth, but one minute past 9 pm, the minister came in here and very shamefacedly said that he had reflected carefully on the evidence that he gave at estimates and went on to give an apology. This was an apology which-Ms Tucker quite rightly used these words-was forced out of Mr Corbell. She said we had forced him to give an apology.

Yes, and because we forced him to give it, he has not shown sufficient contrition and has not shown that he had sufficient understanding of the situation that he has brought us to. What this minister has done in this place, and in the Estimates Committee, is to say, "Any means is available to me to avoid questioning on a subject that I find inconvenient."Yes, it was inconvenient, because the figures were a shambles and this minister did not want to face the music on the day.

Mr Quinlan: Why did you not follow it up?

MRS DUNNE: As Mr Smyth has already said, there was no point following it up with the minister because, by the time the minister had come back, there had been full and public disclosure of the matter. He had avoided the questioning of the Estimates Committee but the matter had been fully and completely exercised in the public arena.

You have to remember that the Estimates Committee, when it brought down its report on 17 June, brought down a unanimous report. There was no demurring by the members of the government on that committee that a committee should be established to investigate whether a contempt had been committed.

We have all come to this place by a very circuitous route because a young and arrogant minister, who has not learnt anything very much in two years here, thinks that he can get away with anything. This young and arrogant minister will come here and again apologise when he is forced to, but not before. It was at the very last minute, to try to prevent the matter being referred to a Privileges Committee, that this man came in here and gave a grudging apology.

He did not apologise to the committee before whom he had committed the contempt, now clearly demonstrated. He did not do it when this matter first arose, on 17 June, in this place. I am glad to see that the Chief Minister has eventually come in here in an attempt to defend his minister. I was wondering about his absence.

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