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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Thursday, 24 June 2004) . . Page.. 2732 ..

The issue of the money is more complex. The minister misled the media by media release on 10 February by making a false claim. The minister then misled the Assembly by giving false information on 11 March: (a) the false claim that mental health funding was $67 when the government came to office; and (b) by making the invalid comparison between the pre-2002 national average figures with the post-2002 budget figures following a significant administrative restructure. Remember that on 10 February Mr Corbell had a question time brief that said the funding had increased to $83.70 per person in the 2001-02 financial year.

The misleading was repeated on 30 and 31 March; the errors were drawn to his attention in the adjournment debate on 30 March, and again through a direct question on 31 March. In addition, questions were placed on notice on 1 April that directly raised the issue. The minister was briefed on 3 May by the chief executive of his department, and I think he has tabled a copy of that briefing tonight. But, after returning answers to questions on notice, signed off on 5 May, there can be no doubt that the minister was aware of the inaccuracies of his claims. On each of the sitting dates of 4 and 5 May the minister failed to correct the record.

The minister gave a partial correction to the record in the adjournment debate on 13 May; however, this correction is inadequate. It is not, under the code, full and true disclosure. It is incorrect because the minister had been given the real information on 10 February. The minister was again warned of the inadequacies of his response on 14 May. He could have corrected this on 25 May, 22 June or 23 June—on three occasions. The minister continued to be in breach of his obligations to correct the record.

This is a serious matter. In some ways the issue of what the breaches were about does not matter. It is about abiding by your own ministerial code of conduct, respecting the house, and respecting your fellow members. It is about being accountable. We have had a number of platitudes. I do not care how you come across; it is not about your personality; it is not about your style—we all have differences in the way we do things—it is about misleading; it is about an original mistake—possibly a genuine mistake—that, when it is brought to your attention you are obliged to correct.

In the three specific examples given tonight the minister had many opportunities—seven days, seven days and three days—to respond to what he was asked, and he failed to do that. It is only here now, at almost 11 o’clock, after a day of debate and a day of negotiation, that we finally get an apology and some corrections from the minister. I will check the record to see whether we have full corrections at this stage. That is why the minister should have been found to have lacked the confidence of the Assembly. I refer the amended motion to members.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Adjournment

Motion (by Mr Wood) proposed:

That the Assembly do now adjourn.

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