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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Thursday, 24 June 2004) . . Page.. 2731 ..

brought to your attention that you have made a mistake—an inadvertent mistake, an accident, somebody has provided you with incorrect information, which happens to all of us—you have to come and correct it. But there has been no correction from Mr Corbell until this evening.

We try to look at what has been given to us. I made it quite clear where I had got my figures from. I made it quite clear that the figure Mr Corbell was quoting was from a previous year, not the last year of the Liberal government, and yet through March, April and May he persisted in telling that story. That is wilfully misleading the house and that is what is unacceptable. I will quote the ministerial code of conduct again. It says:

All Ministers are to recognise the importance of full and true disclosure and accountability to the Parliament.

It continues:

…Being answerable to the Assembly requires Ministers to ensure that they do not wilfully mislead the Assembly in respect of their Ministerial responsibilities.

It continues:

Ministers should take reasonable steps to ensure the factual content of statements they make in the Assembly are soundly based and that they correct any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity.

Again, that is the escape clause. Let us look at what Mr Corbell did in each of these three issues. The misleading is that the minister misled the Assembly by giving false information on 30 March about government-funded mental health nursing scholarships. The error was drawn to his attention by a question that appeared on the notice paper on 1 April, and again by discussion in estimates hearings on 7 April. By returning an answer to the question on notice presented to the Assembly on 14 May the minister had signed off on a document that confirmed that the original information was misleading. The minister has never given the Assembly a correction; hence on each of the sitting dates of 4 May, 5 May, 13 May, 14 May, 25 May, 22 June and 23 June he is in breach of his obligation to correct the record

He had seven opportunities. That is the problem—when you are asked to correct and you choose not to. You might get away with it once or twice but to have several opportunities—and in this case there were seven occasions—on which to correct and not do so is a breach of the ministerial code. Let us go to the claims that the opposition leader made a statement which is recorded in Hansard. The misleading is that the minister misled the Assembly by giving false information on 30 March—namely the false claim that the opposition leader had in the Assembly made a particular claim about a forensic unit.

No statement of any kind as alleged by the minister has ever been made by me. The error was drawn to the minister’s attention by personal explanation by myself on 1 April. (Further extension of time granted.) Until this evening the minister has never given the Assembly a correction. Hence, through each of the sitting days of 4 May, 5 May, 13 May, 14 May, 25 May, 22 June and 23 June he continued to be in breach of the obligation to correct the record. There were another seven opportunities, members.

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