Page 1073 - Week 03 - Thursday, 26 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (12.14): This is a classic example of opposition for opposition’s sake by Mrs Dunne. It is a classic example of: “We know you have to do this but we’re going to oppose it anyway.” That is Mrs Dunne’s position on this. She recognises, and has acknowledged in her earlier comments, that this needs to be done, but she is going to oppose it anyway.
What sort of responsible and sensible approach is that from someone who says they are the shadow minister in this area? If they recognise there is a problem, and they recognise that it needs to be fixed in this way, why wouldn’t they support it? It is because she is not interested in the practical, sensible resolution of problems; it is just opposition for opposition’s sake when it comes to Mrs Dunne. If she was genuinely concerned about this problem, she would vote for this proposal.
But having chastised me for this situation, she is now saying: “I’m not going to be part of the solution. I’m not going to be part of putting this matter beyond doubt. I’m going to sit on my high horse. I’m going to stand by my own unimpeachable and completely unvarnished ability to make no mistakes ever in my life and to not in any way make an error in this place and demand the same of the minister. But I’m not going to have any responsibility, I’m going to oppose for the sake of opposition.” That is Mrs Dunne’s position. How responsible is that on the part of the shadow attorney-general?
The circumstances of this situation are quite clear. I was advised by my department that these appointments needed to be made as a matter of urgency. They advised me that their view was that I would be unable to consult with the relevant standing committee as I would otherwise be required to do under the relevant legislation. They drew those matters to my attention and they said: “Minister, we believe you have no choice but to make the appointments. The Residential Tenancies Tribunal and the Liquor Licensing Board will meet in the weeks immediately following the election. It would be a real problem if those bodies could not meet in the weeks immediately following the election, and we recommend to you, minister, that you make the appointments. We further recommend to you, minister, that you write to the relevant standing committee explaining your actions and outlining why you have done so.”
I took that advice. I thought it was sensible advice and I must say that, given the particular circumstances, it is an extremely high bar that Mrs Dunne and others set, for ministers, acting on advice, particularly when it comes to the interpretation of legislation, to then be hung out to dry by this Assembly when they act on what can only be considered to be informed and reasonable advice at the time. That is a very interesting standard of responsibility that Mrs Dunne proposes, and the next time she gets advice that is wrong, I am sure she is going to say, “Look, I took reasonable advice but at the end of the day it’s me.”
Mrs Dunne: I take responsibility; you don’t take responsibility.
MR CORBELL: Mrs Dunne and members, I am taking responsibility; I am addressing the problem and I have introduced legislation to address the problem.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .