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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Thursday, 24 June 2004) . . Page.. 2712 ..

that there has been misleading in any of these matters, it is important for it to take into consideration other aspects too over the course of this Assembly—that is, to use an old criminal parlance term, I suppose, prior convictions. Unfortunately this minister does have form. Back in May 2003 there were incidents in relation to withholding information from the Assembly on hospital activity and waiting lists. The Assembly at that stage forced him to supply the information. I understand that he went kicking and screaming but that he did supply it.

Also, in May 2003 we had a fairly well known incident—withholding information from the Estimates Committee in regard to waiting list data. At a privileges committee hearing it was found that the minister had been guilty of contempt. A motion of no confidence was moved in the Assembly on 18 November 2003. It was downgraded to one of grave concern and the motion was passed. The minister was found in contempt and the ultimate sanction imposed was one of grave concern. There was a successful censure, even before that, on 23 September 2003 in relation to the Nettlefold Street trees. Back in August 2003 there was a failure by the minister to respect the resolution of the Assembly on the Nettlefold Street trees. On 23 September 2003 there was a successful censure motion on the minister.

Last year, a contempt of the Assembly process resulted in a motion of grave concern. There was also a successful censure motion of the minister. And now we have these other matters. Effectively, if you are going to find him not guilty, that is the end of it, but I certainly submit that the evidence is there that he is guilty. Unfortunately there is a pattern of fairly systematic actions which show that the minister is not giving due regard to the Assembly. He is holding the Assembly in some contempt by his actions here. There is, in fact, a track record. The fact that he has priors is something that should be taken into account in these matters. Ministers should recognise the importance of full and true disclosure and accountability to the Assembly.

There was not a terribly satisfactory chain of events, even after the censure motion on the Nettlefold Street trees. Some very half-hearted efforts were made by some government officials in relation to the Nettlefold Street trees. I read out an email on 12 February this year from a very concerned Helen Brewer citing the lack of action from Mr Corbell and his office in adhering to what the Assembly wanted.

Mr Speaker and members: you are not considering just these matters. With this particular matter here today you also have to take into account that this minister, unfortunately—and it is unfortunate—has form. As a result of that form—sadly, he has already had a grave concern motion and one censure motion; it is always sad when these things are proven—the motion of no confidence is appropriate and deserving of support for the reasons I have outlined.

MR HARGREAVES (9.18): If we believe that, because somebody has got form, they should be convicted and sentenced without consideration of anything, then we can support what Mr Stefaniak is saying. The truth of the matter is that Mr Smyth lays three charges. The Minister for Health and Minister for Planning in his speech has debunked those charges, almost to the abject embarrassment of the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition has been nothing short of petty in this instance and he ought to be thoroughly ashamed of himself. But, then again, it is not surprising, given that he is struggling for oxygen.

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