Page 4055 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 13 December 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR SPEAKER: Withdraw that.
MR MULCAHY: I beg your pardon?
MR SPEAKER: Withdraw that.
MR MULCAHY: I will withdraw that remark and say that the accuracy of the Chief Minister’s claims are in contrast to his activities on 24 August 2005, when he moved to censure the shadow Attorney-General for “his blatant and repeated misleading of the people of Canberra in this Assembly”. It seems, Mr Speaker, that the Chief Minister’s memory is failing and does not accord with the theatrical performance that we just saw. I am disappointed to hear this—
Mr Stanhope: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do apologise, I thought that censure motion was in the last parliament. We have moved one censure I was aware of, but I did not think it was in this parliament. This is the second censure we have moved in this parliament and not the first, as I have said. I acknowledge that now and apologise.
MR SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
MR MULCAHY: Thank you, Mr Speaker and Chief Minister. We have got that first part correct. I want to draw members’ attention to the issue of censuring an individual member before I deal with the substance of this matter and I draw to the attention of members House of Representatives Practice, which deals with this issue. It notes that a motion of censure of a private member has been moved on only two occasions. Further, it notes:
A motion in the form of a censure of a Member … is not consistent with the parliamentary convention that the traditional purpose of a vote of censure is to question or to bring to account a Minister’s responsibility to the House. Furthermore, given the relative strength of the parties in the House, and the strength of party loyalties, in ordinary circumstances it could be expected that a motion or amendment expressing censure of an opposition leader or another opposition Member would be agreed to, perhaps regardless of the circumstances or the merits of the arguments or allegations.
That is clearly the case today. The government will simply use its numbers to shut down legitimate questioning by two non-government members; namely, Mr Seselja and Dr Foskey.
The behaviour of Mr Corbell throughout this process has been more than sufficient grounds for Mr Seselja to be legitimately probing the sale process for the EpiCentre site. I do not see how this government can justify launching such an attack on a shadow minister who has been diligently doing his job as a member of the opposition, that being to hold the government to account and highlight areas where questions could, or should, be asked.
Even after the release of this audit report there are a number of questions that remain unanswered and a number of matters that will require further examination and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .