Page 1089 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 6 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I do not think any case has been made by the opposition and I think that has quite clearly come through in the context of people’s contributions to the debate this afternoon. We are now going to go through a ridiculous exercise where we are going to get scrawled handwritten amendments to the substantive motion in a degrading series of language over the course of the rest of the afternoon. If this one does not get up, are you going to move a further amendment to change the language again, having failed in your attempt to move a no-confidence motion in Minister Corbell?
There are no grounds and no basis for either a want of confidence or a censure motion in the minister and I think, by the standards of this Assembly when other censure motions have been moved, for this to warrant a censure this afternoon would be an extraordinary new low for this place. I think the idea that you come in and raise the stakes with a no-confidence motion and then try to intimidate members into supporting some lesser, but still significant, censure against a minister by way of achieving some sort of compromise is a very poor way to go about discharging the duties of an opposition and indeed would be a very poor reflection on this place were such a process to be supported. It would set a very bad precedent. There is no way that we can support that.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (4.43): I have just had a chance to look at the amendment that has been put forward by Mr Hanson. It would now read “This Assembly censures Simon Corbell for misleading the Assembly.” I do not think Mr Corbell has misled the Assembly. That is actually what it is going to come down to. What I said in my earlier remarks was that I had reservations and that I was prepared to support something along the lines of the fact that I thought the process of explanation was not adequate. That is the point I was making. I think a better explanation could have been put on the table, but these things are difficult. I do not believe Mr Corbell misled the Assembly and so, on that basis, whilst I do think that this has been untidy and I think the minister could have given a better explanation in this place, I cannot support a mislead. So I will actually not be able to support the amendment.
MADAM SPEAKER: The question is that Mr Hanson’s amendment to Mr Hanson’s motion be agreed to. Mr Hanson, I think you going to need leave to speak in this case.
MR HANSON (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (3.44): I seek leave to speak and close the debate, Madam Speaker.
Leave granted.
MR HANSON: Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that the threshold for this place is now that ministers can mislead, can have a situation where members of this Assembly agree that they have not told the truth, can say that, of the versions of truth put forward, because there is one that seems plausible, that does not come from the minister concerned, and there is no reprimand, there is no punishment, there is no holding to account of a government minister. There is no want of confidence; there is no censure; there is no action taken on the minister for what we now know, and what Mr Rattenbury agrees, was a version that was untrue. Mr Rattenbury has said that the Chief Minister’s is the true version. Therefore, Mr Corbell’s are the untrue versions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video