Page 1499 - Week 05 - Thursday, 7 April 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Government members obviously do not consider the estimates committee to be important. What happened here was that a member, a new member, in many ways perhaps an innocent victim in this case, actually went to Mr Corbell to plead for a position because she thought it was important. Mr Corbell took advantage of that. By Dr Foskey’s account, innocent as it may be—and I am sure that Dr Foskey did not intend in any way to drop Mr Corbell in it, but unfortunately she has—what Mr Corbell said was, “I will give you what you want so long as you do something in return.” That was a contract. It was a contract initiated by Mr Corbell. It was a contract that offered Dr Foskey a benefit.
This is a most serious matter. It is a small matter. Mr Corbell did not offer Dr Foskey the chairmanship, which would have remuneration attached to it, but it does not have to be a pecuniary benefit. He did not offer her a weekend at the coast or anything like that, which would be more tangible, but he did offer her a benefit. The benefit is a seat at the table in the estimates committee. The benefit is the prestige of being a member of the estimates committee, something that obviously Dr Foskey sought considerably.
The benefit, especially for a Green and a crossbench member, is in having a casting vote on that estimates committee. It is a position of considerable power. This is not about the cut and thrust of normal negotiation. The crux of the issue is that Mr Corbell made an offer of a personal benefit to Dr Foskey. I understand that Dr Foskey is upset and I appreciate that she is really pretty much the meat in the sandwich. I sympathise with Dr Foskey’s predicament. But this is not really about Dr Foskey’s predicament. It is about the unacceptable inducement made by this minister. He would like to make this debate about, “Look, you’re all picking on me because I’m Simon Corbell.”
It is not about Simon Corbell personally. If it was a personal criticism, we might criticise the cut of his suit, his hair-do, the way he walks, all of those things. That would be a personal criticism. But when we criticise the actions of this minister and the actions of the Manager of Government Business, it is a political criticism.
MR SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Arts, Heritage and Indigenous Affairs) (11.25): I will respond to some of the points that have been made by the opposition in relation to this motion. This motion is a nonsense. It is a motion that suggests that the Minister for Health should be asked to resign. The Liberal Party today is calling on the Minister for Health to resign because he carried out, on behalf of the government, certain business. He made certain representations to another member of this Assembly with the authority, and on behalf, of the government and as a result you stand here and ask him to resign.
In asking him to resign you make a case which proposes, effectively, if we are to believe the words of Mrs Dunne, that Ms Foskey should in fact be facing criminal charges; that, if the charges are proved, she should go to jail. So today the Liberal Party is standing in this place and seriously suggesting that the Minister for Health should resign and that Deb Foskey should be sent to jail, all because a discussion was held in relation to the constitution of a committee of this place.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .