Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 12 Hansard (18 November) . . Page.. 4173 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

the issuing of the apology. Mr Corbell apologised only when he realised that he would face a contempt committee if he did not. You have to question that apology, you have to question the timing of the apology and you have to question when and where the apology was made. The apology was made at absolutely the last minute. He was not going to give in until he had to, until he was facing something much worse.

What did the Assembly decide at that time? The apology was given and the apology was accepted. But the matter here is far more important than the matter of an apology. The matter here is the standing of the Assembly and where we see ourselves and where the community sees us if somebody deliberately does something wrong, and these numbers were deliberately denied to the committee.

There are many forms used in this place of answering questions and Mr Quinlan is a past master. I suspect that Mr Quinlan has a whole section of the Macquarie Dictionary on the meaning of the word "soon". Mr Quinlan has not deliberately been in contempt of any committee that I have sat on because he answers questions in a particular form. Perhaps the form is wrong and we need to address that, but Mr Quinlan has done the right thing under the way we operate. Some people might not like the way we operate. Okay, let's change it, but that is a debate for another day. But Mr Quinlan has never said, "No, you can't."His definition of "soon"runs from something like 15 minutes to 21/2 weeks, but it is a definition that he lives by. He uses it skillfully, as a skillful politician may.

Mr Corbell does not. Mr Corbell in his arrogance-the growing arrogance for which he is confronted today by this finding against him-said, "No, I don't have to."In effect, he said, "No, I don't want to. No, I won't."That is the problem. We have from the committee that has reported on this matter a confirmation that what he did was wrong. We talk about having a bill of rights. What about having responsibilities? Are we going to have a bill of right that says that ministers can commit contempt and not be found guilty? Let's not water this down any more, Mr Speaker.

The important thing here is that we have a process. Let's look at what happened the last time there was a privileges committee inquiry into contempt and what the individual who was found guilty of contempt did. He did the right thing; he resigned. The report was tabled and that individual resigned on the spot, because he had respect for the processes and the outcomes of the committee. He did the honourable thing. He did the right thing. He did what would have been expected of him. I suspect that, if he had not done it, this place would have gone further and taken action.

That person, of course, was not a minister, holding a much higher office and a much more responsible position than any of us as ordinary members of the Assembly. If a minister breaks the rules and does not accept that he is accountable to the Assembly and it does not hold that minister responsible for his actions, the Assembly will be setting a precedent that we will all rue.

Mr Speaker, it is quite clear that Minister Corbell is guilty of contempt. That was the unanimous decision of the committee. The committee went on to say that there should be no further action. I reject that notion. If he is guilty of contempt, something that the Clerk of the House of Representatives says in advice is a very serious offence and that the

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .