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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 03 Hansard (Tuesday, 16 March 2010) . . Page.. 834 ..

MR CORBELL: You cannot try to finger Simon Corbell for problems with a commonwealth government program, but that is what this whole strategy from the Liberal opposition has been about from day one. It is lazy. It is lazy tactics from a lazy opposition. I have never denied the existence of documents.

Mrs Dunne: You did.


Mrs Dunne: You did, in this place.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mrs Dunne, you are warned.

MR CORBELL: I have never denied that complaints have been received. I have answered the questions asked of me about unsafe installation of insulation under the federal government scheme. That is what I have done. I have been honest and complete in my answers at all times. But what we have from this opposition is the use of the half-story, statements out of context and semantics to try to score some cheap political points, and I will not be buying it.

MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (11.07): The minister, in his finish, completes the case. The minister’s final comment was, “I have been complete with my answers.” Well, you only have to go to the minister’s answers to find out that he was not. The minister said in this place on 11 February:

Mr Speaker, the government does not have any documents about the home insulation program because we do not run the home insulation program.

He goes on to say:

The government does not have documents in relation to the home insulation program because we do not run the home insulation program.

And yet we do have documents. If you want to get into an argument about what a document is, go for your life. But the reality is that there are documents signed by the minister to the federal minister and documents in return, as well as the MOU, which he says do not exist. He misled the Assembly. He then persistently and wilfully continues to say, “These documents don’t represent documents that I was talking about because the opposition question wasn’t clear enough.” Well, what was the opposition question? It is very, very interesting. The opposition’s question from Mrs Dunne was:

A supplementary question, Mr Speaker. Minister, can you and your cabinet colleagues table any and all documents relating to—

this issue. Again: “any and all documents”. That might include an MOU, which I would assume is not an insubstantial document. It actually might include letters that the minister signed, which he did. But he told this place they did not exist, and he has perpetuated that lie today. This is persistent; this is wilful behaviour of a minister who refuses to take responsibility for his actions. This is the persistent and wilful

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