Page 4507 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 18 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We welcome the censure—at least something has been put on the record now about this minister’s performance—but it does raise the question of what you have to do to lose your ministry in this place. It is interesting that in the Greens’ agreement with the government they say:
Maintain confidence in Chief Minister Mr Jon Stanhope—
I have not seen the updated one; I am not sure if it exists—
and his Ministers except in instances of proven corruption or gross negligence;
or for significant non-adherence to this agreement.
So the question here is: what is the measure of gross negligence before the Greens will vote to remove a minister?
Mrs Dunne: Does somebody have to die?
MR SMYTH: I am not sure what has to happen. It is not like this occurred just in July; we heard about it in May. We heard about it in May last year in the estimates—and by all accounts it has not improved.
There is a question of whether anything would have happened at all. There is a nice positioning of some of the statements in the report from the advocate. Paragraph 1.1 of the introduction states that on 13 September 2011 the Minister for Community Services, Ms Joy Burch, wrote to the director-general to ask for the inquiry. The following paragraph states that on 9 September 2011, following a meeting with staff from Northern Bridging Support, Mrs Dunne wrote to the minister. So you have to ask: would anything have happened if that letter had not been written by Mrs Dunne? I think the answer is no, because we know from when we dealt with, for instance, Bimberi, nothing happened until there were motions in this place. And this is the problem. It is not just the once. It is not just this issue, as bad as this issue is. This minister has been negligent almost from the very start.
It is interesting what the code of conduct says if we want to apply the Greens-Labor agreement to the code of conduct:
Being a Minister demands the highest standards of probity, accountability, honesty, integrity and diligence in the exercise of their public duties and functions.
Diligence, minister. How can you explain your diligence to the 24 cases that the advocate was able to find in a very short period of time? Members, there has been no diligence here—on one of the most, if not the most, important services that the government provides to its community.
We all understand how hard it is. We all understand the judgements that have to be made. We have all heard of cases or had things brought to our attention. But there is only one minister in this place responsible and in this case this minister has not acted responsibly and has not been diligent, and accordingly this minister should go.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video