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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 12 Hansard (18 November) . . Page.. 4188 ..

MS TUCKER: I will be very brief. This is a very interesting debate and I want to make clear that, while I have concluded that contempt is contempt, it is also obviously clear, as Ms Dundas pointed out, that there are degrees to which you can respond to anything. That is the point that I do not think I made clearly enough in my presentation. I did present the arguments-and I will not repeat them-for my thinking that the particular response that Mrs Cross has suggested is appropriate. It is the degree of the response that we obviously also need to bring into this discussion.

MRS BURKE (12.16): Mr Speaker, listening to the debate this morning, I picked up on a couple of things that a couple of people have said. I am not surprised, but more disappointed at Mr Quinlan's comments, which score cheap political points. We have all agreed in this place that this is an important issue. It is critical to the operation and function of this place. For Mr Quinlan to be saying that on an issue that is so important-I ask you! However, he did say that he is concerned about the public perception of this place. Surely, if we do not uphold the Westminster system and everything that it stands for, our credibility and standing in this community will be as nothing.

Mr Speaker, I am disappointed further that the Labor Party continued to pull stunts that demean us, lower the standing of this place and reflect upon us all. The disregard for the committee system that we are seeing now, in this instance, worries me greatly. We should understand what people out there are going to perceive. We tend to think nobody will hear what goes on in this place. I do not believe that to be the case. This is a serious matter and Mr Quinlan does take this place seriously, so he says. Why, then, does he not take seriously the refusal by one of the executive, a minister, Mr Corbell, to provide the relevant information when asked?

Mr Speaker, this motion goes to the very heart of what this place is all about: showing respect for this place, each other and the protocols and conventions that are in place. I am disappointed. That respect has been lost.

I realise that Mrs Cross wants to amend the wording, perhaps to soften the blow. Using the wording "grave concern"to amend it may have been appropriate had the committee not found Mr Corbell to be in contempt, but it did. This Assembly must therefore go further than simply expressing grave concern. Mrs Cross recognised that this was a serious matter and this is not the first time this minister has seen fit to blatantly disregard the will of this Assembly, to which I think Ms Tucker also alluded. She alluded to the fact that this minister has had reason to apologise to this Assembly on other occasions.

I cannot therefore understand why we should be amending this motion to reduce the level of severity. In other words, if Mr Corbell has held this place in contempt more than once before, we must express a lack of confidence rather than a grave concern. The issue is that the minister decided-

MR CORBELL: Point of order, Mr Speaker: Mrs Burke suggested I have held this place in contempt on more than one occasion. That is not accurate and she should withdraw the comment.

MRS BURKE: I withdraw that, Mr Speaker. We must express a lack of confidence rather than a grave concern, given the minister's previous actions in this place. The issue

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