Page 4057 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 13 December 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STANHOPE: Childish!
MR MULCAHY: If there is a childish element, it is the fact that Mr Corbell’s sensitivity is so great that he cannot cope with a member who had been in this place for barely two years questioning his role as a minister. It seems that we have a most defensive minister who cannot cope with the fact that he has been put under the pump following serious questioning by Mr Seselja—and, in fairness, by Dr Foskey—about a matter which made it even necessary for him to turn up to the estimates committee with his legal adviser. That was extraordinary. That has occurred only a couple of times in any parliament in Australia. Certainly it will create a new record, and that is actually an accurate assertion, unlike the Chief Minister’s earlier on.
It is a bit rich for Mr Corbell to be accusing Mr Seselja of inappropriate behaviour when it was indeed the minister himself who led the charge in muddying the waters on the issue and failed to provide sufficient clarity over the EpiCentre sale at the very early stages when this was raised. In fairness, I contrast Mr Corbell’s conduct to the Chief Minister’s dealing with Rhodium, where he actually was upfront on the issues raised and acknowledged a problem and, as a consequence, was able to ensure that a more appropriate approach was taken by all members of this Assembly.
In this case we have had the ducking and weaving that was a feature of the minister’s approach through months and months of questioning by Mr Seselja. It is hardly any surprise that Mr Seselja persisted in seeking to get to the bottom of the issues, a number of which are addressed in the Auditor-General’s report and will be subject to further examination.
Mr Speaker, I have submitted an amendment to this motion, and I now move:
Omit all words after “That”, substitute “this Assembly acknowledges the duty and right of Opposition Members to scrutinise the role of Ministers and rejects any attempt to stifle debate or scrutiny of government.”.
We are looking at a very important principle here today. Mr Stanhope makes a great issue of democracy. Democracy, under the Westminster system, is all about scrutinising the government. It is the duty of the opposition to scrutinise and question ministers, and it ought to be a course of action that is encouraged, rather than feared, as seems to be the case with Mr Corbell.
His constant sensitivity to criticism is extraordinary. He has moved a motion here today to censure Mr Seselja and Dr Foskey. I listened very carefully and quietly to all his comments and I simply could not hear a matter of substance to support his claim that they have abused the processes of the Legislative Assembly. He made not one single point. He clung to a couple of press releases and said there were questions asked. What is the situation? If we ask a question of the Assembly, are we are now subject to censure?
This is an extraordinary motion. It is a gross overreaction by someone who is clearly precious and under pressure in his role. He has been overridden by the Chief Minister.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .