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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Thursday, 24 June 2004) . . Page.. 2726 ..

his errors in early May. The minister then set the record straight at virtually the first opportunity. It is in looking at the detail that I find myself taking this matter quite seriously.

To put it simply Mr Corbell enjoyed a month or two of bashing up the opposition on the basis of inaccurate information that he did not check when it was challenged. Then, when the error is pointed out he corrects the record in the most minimal way, arguing legalistically that that is all that is required. He shows no interest in apologising for the unwarranted political damage that has been inflicted. I must say I was glad to see Mr Corbell tonight showing a little bit more understanding of the damage he created and apologising to the Assembly.

If this were a matter for the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act, then a press release correcting the record and a genuine apology would be the obvious requirement. This is a small parliament where we work with each other quite intensely. I have seen no evidence yet that an antagonistic point-scoring personal approach to politics delivers a better outcome in policy, in the status of this parliament or in the health and effectiveness of those of us who work here. Rather, I would imagine it is the opposite.

A lot can be gained by people who have the grace to admit they are wrong and apologise for any harm they have done to others as a consequence. It is not just about following policy frameworks and putting things on the record, it is also about how we approach our work. If it continues without change it also makes it difficult to trust each other and, in this case, the minister’s word. It is not duplicitous to consider the intent and feelings of others in how you do your work, even in this little bear pit of an Assembly, because antagonism and aggression does lead us into misrepresentation, misleading, and lack of respect for the institution. However, as I have said, at this point I do not see the offences that have been put up by the opposition as hanging offences, but join with Ms Dundas in her amendment expressing concern at what has happened. As I said, I hope that this has been a positive experience in some ways for all of us to reflect on how we operate, but particularly for Mr Corbell.

MS MacDONALD (10.22): I am slightly confused because Ms Tucker just referred to Ms Dundas’s amendment as expressing concern, as opposed to a censure, but it says “censure” on it.

Ms Tucker: That is what I meant.

MS MacDONALD: I was wondering if it had been downgraded again, while I blinked. I think what we have here today is the issue of style; the issue of a number of people not liking the style of Minister Corbell and taking advantage of that—seeing him as an easy shot because of his style. There has been a lot said tonight and earlier today about the dignity of the house and the place has been referred to as a sandpit or toy parliament. We all contribute to that—not just the executive of the Assembly.

Ms Tucker made the comment that she believes Mr Corbell does not deserve to lose his ministry, and that is a relief. Everybody has been talking tonight about how seriously they take the issue of a no confidence motion, as they should, because it is a serious matter. To take a ministry away, a person would have to have committed a grave error. Obviously that means that the opposition, who are putting up this motion, need to make

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