Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 12 Hansard (18 November) . . Page.. 4203 ..
MR SMYTH (continuing):
issues affecting emerging countries and third world countries. They look to us and they look to the standards we set. They look to what we do, whether it be in the federal parliament, the state parliaments or the territory parliaments of Australia, Canada or South Africa.
Mr Speaker, all of the jurisdictions look to each other for the standards we set and what we are getting from this Assembly, from particularly this government, is the standard of the lowest common denominator. We have got a chief minister who will not give us his ministerial code of conduct. We have got ministers who think they can get away with contempt by coming down when the writing is on the wall and apologising. Why didn't the minister apologise earlier? Why not? Because he thought he could tough it out.
Ms Dundas said contempt is contempt, and she is right. Contempt is contempt. It is not minor contempt, major contempt, small, medium or large contempt. No other jurisdiction has defined levels of contempt but we will do so here today if we downgrade this to a matter of "grave concern". And that is the problem. We are setting the bar so low. This has been done by a government that promised greater accountability, more openness, more honesty, and what we get is less.
Ms Tucker said there are no degrees of contempt. Maybe there should be-I don't know. But the principle, as it stands at the moment, is that contempt is contempt. It should be punished. It is not a slap on the wrist issue. It is indicative of an attitude that a member or a minister has towards his or her Assembly and the attitude of the minister was that he just did not care. It is interesting to read what the minister said. Paragraph 3.35 of the report states:
In evidence to the committee Mr Corbell indicated that he had made an error of judgement; he was wrong; and he apologised.
Paragraph 3.37 states:
Mr Corbell claimed that he had not heard the Chair of Estimates Committee ask for "the raw figure now".
Well let us look at the final Hansard:
THE CHAIR: Do officers have the March figure with them now? Has the waiting list grown or has it shrunk in March?
Mr Corbell: Well, officers do have that, but I will be releasing those figures later this week.
THE CHAIR: Could we have a raw figure now and the breakdown later this week?
Mr Corbell: No.
THE CHAIR: Why not, Minister?
Mr Corbell: Well, the government will make the decision on when it announces and releases things. As I've indicated to you, I'll be releasing these figures later this week.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .