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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Thursday, 24 June 2004) . . Page.. 2713 ..

Mr Speaker, if you look at the papers that the minister has provided us today you will see just how frivolous this charge is. It is a bit of a shame that we do not have a mechanism for an expression of no confidence in the Leader of the Opposition. I for one, and I am sure his colleagues, would love to explore that.

What is really at the heart of this matter is that those opposite do not like the demeanour of Mr Corbell, the attitude of Mr Corbell or the way he does things. Why is that, do you think? That is because Mr Corbell actually does do things. This minister has put planning on the map in this city, he has got people talking about planning in their homes, he has turned the paradigms of planning in this town on their ear and he has re-created a planning paradigm in this city which will live on.

What we are seeing here is a nice piece of spiteful jealousy. There is not a shred of evidence. Have a good look at the seriousness of this issue, Mr Speaker. It is really mind-blowing! The minister has misled because he said a figure was doubled. What is the figure? Sixty-seven bucks. Wow! When you look at the minister’s paperwork, you will find that he is right. The Leader of the Opposition says that we should express no confidence in this minister because he misquoted a Liberal Party policy statement. Good heavens! I recall in the last Assembly that the then government used to do it almost every time we met. Mr Humphries, the great builder of straw men of all time, did it. He used to take selective sentences out of our policy. We did not think that was particularly serious enough to move a no confidence motion. But, then again, we were not sinking; we were swimming a bit.

I say to the people who have not made up their minds already: consider, if you will, not these unsustained arguments put forward by the Leader of the Opposition—consider them not—but consider the achievements of this minister. I think this minister can wear as a badge of honour the number of times he has upset the shadow minister for planning and how often he has made the shadow minister for planning look like just that—a shadow.

I have just had placed before me an amendment to replace the censure motion. Here we go again! All I can say is: please give some thought to the seriousness of this issue. This is a frivolous claim, totally debunked with paper proof, measured up against the achievements of this minister. Just consider for a second, if you will, the achievements of those opposite—the six years of disaster they wreaked upon this town. You are going to censure this minister: for what? He has provided you with proof that the charges made by Mr Smyth are the biggest load of rot he has perpetrated in this place since he has been here. No wonder Mr 14 per cent is just that! He has absolutely no credibility at all. He does himself and this chamber no credit by this no confidence motion. He denigrates the whole lot of us. I take it as a personal affront that he denigrates the institution of this parliament. There is no necessity for this. If those opposite want to move a motion of no confidence in the minister, they should consider his performance in the portfolio. It should not just be because he has misread to you, by your interpretation, your own policy.

These charges are nothing short of kindergarten stuff and should be dismissed out of hand. You do not have to applaud every single thing this minister does in planning; heavens, I do not always do that. You can giggle away just like a kindergarten dropout if

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