Page 1086 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 6 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
as we are under pressure. It was incorrect. Mr Corbell has come in here and apologised for that, as the code of conduct requires him to do or, frankly, any other member would do. The ministerial code of conduct spells it out. But I think it applies to all members. We have seen various members do it at various times. They come in here and say, “I was actually wrong on that.” Mr Corbell did that.
There is some—I am searching for the right word—murkiness about the rest of it. I think probably the Chief Minister has given the truest account of what actually happened in the situation here.
Opposition members interjecting—
MADAM SPEAKER: Order!
MR RATTENBURY: I think it does seem rather regrettable that it has taken a whole series of speeches today to get to that bottom line because I think that this could have all been dealt with rather more quickly and rather more effectively if that was the case. Does that then result in a no-confidence motion in the minister? No, I do not think so. I think this is clearly a matter that is—I think the explanation has been inadequate. But I do not think it goes to whether the minister should lose his job.
I think that in the way that things play out in this place, I understand why Mr Corbell approached this in the way that he did. I think that it would have been helpful if he had been more explicit in the way he explained it. But at worst that warrants a censure motion. I certainly do not think it warrants a no-confidence motion. On that basis I will not be supporting Mr Hanson’s motion as moved today.
MADAM SPEAKER: The question is that Mr Hanson’s motion of want of confidence in the Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development be agreed to. I call on Mr Hanson to close the debate.
MR HANSON (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (3.32), in reply: Madam Speaker, I think that Mr Rattenbury in his speech probably let the rabbit out of the hat when he said, “The Chief Minister’s version is perhaps the truest version.” There have been four versions we have heard about what happened. He is saying that the Chief Minister’s seems to be the truest version. Is not that the point I am making, Madam Speaker? Is not the point that someone is not telling a true version? I think the fact that Mr Rattenbury has accepted that and said, “There’s a bunch of versions out here and clearly some of them are not true; the Chief Minister’s seems to be the truest,” is the point. The point is that Mr Corbell has misled the Assembly.
Mr Rattenbury has agreed with that. Mr Rattenbury has said, “Yes, that is true, because of all of the various versions we have heard this morning and this afternoon about what happened, the Chief Minister’s appears to be the truest.” By a process of elimination, the other three versions from the minister are the least true, are the untrue versions of what has occurred.
The argument that the government is trying to spin is, “Do not worry about this. This is trivial. This does not matter. This is just trivia.” I do not think ministers being
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video