Page 4353 - Week 10 - Thursday, 22 September 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
have not had a case put forward. Compare what has been put forward by the Canberra Liberals on numerous occasions, including that one on 6 April where there were five pages of evidence on the notice paper, with what has been presented today by Mr Barr, who could not even point to a single instance, to anything, that Mr Smyth had done, other than some rhetoric.
So the point I am making is that this is not a censure that is derived from any substantive wrongdoing by Mr Smyth. This is simply political opportunism by the Labor Party and supported by the Greens—and I am not sure it has been supported by all the Greens. As I said, I think there would have to be a wedge in there somewhere because I simply cannot believe that Ms Le Couteur would have supported this motion, knowing, as she does, the detail of what has occurred and knowing that what Mr Smyth has done is simply in a press release say nothing more, nothing further, than she has already said publicly that is the subject of a committee that has been voted on in this place and has been agreed to by the majority of the members in this place.
I am not sure that, whichever way this vote goes, Mr Smyth is going to be too disappointed, because when you review the Hansard and you listen to the debate I think that the argument put forward by Mr Smyth and Mr Seselja stands up. It has actually exposed a number of things. It has exposed the ineptitude of Mr Barr, who either deliberately did not make the case or, if he was trying to make the case—if that was his best effort—questions have to be raised about his ability or his willingness to protect and defend his Chief Minister. I think it has again exposed the closeness, the association—almost a marriage—between Labor and the Greens.
Whenever we move a motion again against a member of the government—and I am sure there will be a motion of censure or no confidence that we will move again, based on this government’s performance—the Greens now will not be able to look the media in the eye when they say, “We don’t support these random motions of no confidence that come from the Liberals,” because now it has got to be 12 to one. When I say 12, there are actually only 11 that are recorded in the sheet that I was given by the Clerk’s office, because for one of them the Greens would not even grant leave. There was a motion of censure that I moved on 7 December 2010 against Mr Corbell, and the Greens did not even grant leave for that. So it is extraordinary to have a position where the Greens will vote 11 times against a motion of censure or a vote of no confidence and on another occasion will not even grant leave.
But for the Labor Party, with the flimsiest of case, on a single occasion, the Greens are leaping into it and are giggling away on the back benches there, saying, “Slippery and slimy,” and thinking that that is all a big joke. So I think you can see that this is nothing about the substance. This is nothing about the issue. This is about the politics and this is about the Greens saying, “We will do anything—anything—to protect the Labor Party at the expense of the Canberra Liberals.” With friends like that, who needs enemies? Any time we are talking about Ms Gallagher and the privileges committee because she interfered in the appointment of the Auditor-General, bring it on.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development, Minister for Territory and Municipal Services and Minister
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video