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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2004) . . Page.. 1838 ..

Mr Smyth talked about when he himself once misled the Assembly. I have not checked Hansard on this, but I understand that that was part of a no-confidence debate that Mr Smyth walked away from. The fact that he misled the Assembly was not grave enough for this Assembly to show no confidence in him as a minister.

I draw the attention of members to the motion of no confidence that was moved against Minister Corbell when he misled the Estimates Committee. He went through a privileges inquiry. In the end, this Assembly recorded a motion of grave concern on that. That was at a time when Minister Corbell came down, admitted that he had done something wrong and apologised for it. The Assembly put on record our concern about that. That is what I want to do today: put on the record our concern that we have been misled.

As I have said before, I cannot support a motion of no confidence. New evidence is being put to the coroner today. New evidence will be put to the coroner tomorrow—all of which is incredibly relevant. But the case is still ongoing. At this stage we cannot prejudge. If we again focus on the misleading and the question of those phone calls, then it is important that we hold him to account for that misleading.

I address the points made by Mr Hargreaves. The Chief Minister did not do something and he should have. That is why we are concerned. That is not a reason to dismiss this. It is not a reason to say that the Chief Minister has no case to answer. He did not do something and he should have. That is the heart of my concern.

That is at the heart of the reason why I have moved this amendment. From what members have said, I understand that they support the idea that the Chief Minister not walk away from this without some kind of reprimand. That is what we will achieve at the end of today.

Question put:

That Ms Dundas’s amendment be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

MR SMYTH (Leader of the Opposition) (5.15): It is interesting that Mr Hargreaves’s memory is so deficient. I refer him to 30 June 1999 when a motion of no confidence moved by Mr Stanhope was downgraded. Hansard lists Mr Hargreaves as being in the ayes when Mr Speaker asks whether the “motion as amended be agreed to”. So perhaps

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