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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Thursday, 24 June 2004) . . Page.. 2716 ..

be quite perverse in the way it does things sometimes. This is a very serious issue to bring forward. It is clear that there is no basis for it.

Mr Corbell has effectively rebutted, point by point, the issues that have been raised—issues outlined in the no confidence motion. Where there was an inaccuracy in one statement—it was not particularly significant anyway—it was corrected in the way it should have been. The other issues are of no depth. There is no background to them; there is no strength behind what is claimed. What is also very revealing is that the issues were raised quite some time ago. It is only now—months after they were first raised and weeks after they were raised in this Assembly—that they have suddenly emerged. If there were a real concern about these issues, that concern should have been expressed well before this—not today. Quite clearly the opposition—Mr Smyth and company—are just out there trawling around, looking for something—anything—to go with.

When we get Mr Stefaniak and Mr Cornwell just raking over old coals, going back into history, it becomes quite clear what the real reason is. They wanted a target and, gosh, Mr Corbell was the one they wanted to grab because they do not like the way he does things. They do not like the fine job either that he has done as Minister for Planning. As an ex-planning minister, I can applaud Mr Corbell for what he has done. Also, they do not like the way he has done the job as Minister for Health, a very difficult task that he has done extremely well. I can tell you that, from reading the budget papers and having sat in the budget debate, he has done extremely well in the health portfolio, hasn’t he, Mr Quinlan?

Mr Quinlan: He has, Mr Wood.

MR WOOD: Yes. There is no question about that: he has done extremely well as health minister and you want to censure him. What about some balance here? The history of Mr Corbell as a minister is outstanding. He has been very successful in what he has done. These claims just do not rate. There is nothing there; the claims are unfounded; there is no justification; the points raised are quite puerile. I say to the crossbenchers, who make the decisions in these things: “Look at the record. Look at the increased funding for health. Look at the way health is doing extremely well under Mr Corbell’s stewardship. Look at all the activity in planning. Look at the studies that have been done and the great work and community acceptance of the work that has been done.” Crossbenchers should consider all that. This motion is not worthy of the time that this Assembly is having to give to it. Mr Corbell is an excellent minister and I know that he is going to be staying as one.

MS DUNDAS (9.38): I think everybody has agreed that this is a very serious matter. There are a number of issues that need to be addressed in relation to the actions and words of Minister Corbell over the last number of months. The motion includes the words “persistently … misleading the Assembly on a number of issues”. I see it as a very broad motion, unlike Minister Wood, who saw it as a very specific motion.

A number of things need to be considered when looking at this motion of no confidence: claims put to the minister about things that he has said or not said in this place; his ability to correct the record; and, also, in terms of each of these issues, what has been the outcome of all of this, which is, I think, what Mr Wood was alluding to.

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