Page 5414 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
information in this place and nothing is done about it? This Assembly has a duty to act. This is not accidental. This is negligent, reckless or deliberate, and any of those scenarios mean that this minister deserves to be censured. If he is not censured, the message from this Assembly to ministers, to the government, will be: “As long as we cannot pin it directly on you that you did not have direct knowledge, you can say what you like. You can hide behind your officials.”
This minister has to stand by what he said. When he got it wrong, he should have come back. He should have come back very soon after 1 November. He should have been able to figure it out. When he asked his department what was the date—“I’ve been asked to give a date; what was that date?”—and got no answer on that, he should have persisted and got an answer. He certainly should not have come back into this place two weeks later and confirmed the mislead. He certainly should not have done that. The prudent thing would have been to say: “I’m checking on that. I’m actually not sure now of the advice that I gave and I will give you more information when I have it.”
But he did not do that. He came in here and misled this Assembly again. This is not accidental. Anyone who believes, based on those facts, given this minister’s record, that this is accidental is either gullible or compromised, in cahoots with this government. Those facts speak for themselves. Either the minister did it knowingly and deliberately or he was completely reckless and negligent as to what he was saying and as to his duties to come into this place and give truthful evidence. Mr Corbell deserves to be censured.
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella) (3.45): Just very briefly, Madam Assistant Speaker, my understanding of the conversations that have gone on so far and the recollection of events have it—and I read the original letter in the Canberra Times from the CEO of the RSPCA—that he actually said that the RSPCA were essentially a volunteer organisation and they were not receiving any funding from the ACT government. That in itself is not right and it has never been right.
Opposition members interjecting—
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ms Le Couteur): Members of the opposition, please be quiet.
MR HARGREAVES: Thanks very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. It actually goes to the point I wanted to make. They are saying that the minister has slurred the CEO of the RSPCA; therefore he should be censured. I might suggest to the chamber that Mrs Dunne in fact slurred the reputation of the Solicitor-General. So what is good for that lot is good for this lot. I would suggest to you, Madam Assistant Speaker—
Mr Doszpot interjecting—
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Doszpot!
MR HARGREAVES: I would suggest to you, Madam Assistant Speaker, that there was nothing in what the Attorney-General has said in relation to the CEO of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video