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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Thursday, 24 June 2004) . . Page.. 2718 ..

had answered those concerns by saying “No, I wasn’t wrong. Here is the proof”. Either way it would have been better to have cleared these things up than to get to the point where we are debating another no confidence motion.

I ask the minister to consider that particular point: even when members are asking for more information or asking for the record to be clarified, nothing is happening. We have to go through a process of moving these motions to get the right information out. This reactive responsiveness, panic driven responsiveness, is disappointing. We have to give weight to people’s words. We have to be able to have trust and confidence in what people are saying. It is all we have. When questions are cast about what people are saying, we have a responsibility to check and to provide information correctly or to clarify the situation as soon as we possibly can. As has been quoted, that is the gist of ministerial responsibility and the code of conduct for ministers.

I ask the minister to consider that for the future so that we do not, at some time in the future, have to have another debate like this. We have had reams of paper put before us in order to clarify two statements. All that being said, I have taken on board the things that Minister Corbell’s colleagues have said. I recognise that Minister Corbell works extremely hard in the position as Minister for Health and Minister for Planning. This was amply demonstrated yesterday when we had a lot of discussions about health and planning and he was able, in an informed way, to participate in those debates.

On the case presented to us and on the answer given by the minister, I do not think it is appropriate for the minister to be asked to cease to be a minister at this point in time. However, because of his unwillingness over the past number of months to correct the record and the fact that we have had to go through this debate to get corrections on the record—we still have not had an apology for all the incorrect information floating around—I think it is important that we put on the record our concern about these events and recognise, through this censure motion, that we do not want this to happen again. I recognise that there are still going to be stoushes about who said what and when, what was meant and whether or not it was true, but I think this debate has shown that there is an onus of responsibility to clear that up as soon as we possibly can. That goes for everybody here, but applies particularly to ministers under the code of conduct. I move:

Omit “expresses a lack of confidence in”, substitute “censures”.

I ask members to support my amendment.

MR CORBELL (Minister for Health and Minister for Planning) (9.48): In speaking to Ms Dundas’s amendment, I would like to make a couple of comments additional to my earlier speech. The first is that the past three to four hours in particular have been very useful to me because I have had the opportunity to have some very frank discussions with crossbench members around their concerns as to how they perceive my actions and the way I handle business in this place. I accept that I can be a difficult person to get to know. I accept that, because I am a relatively private person and not a particularly demonstrative person, I can come across as somewhat arrogant, aloof or disrespectful. I regret that perception. But, at the same time, I have to remain true to myself and to how I manage my interactions with the world.

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