ACT Legislative Assembly Hansard


Advanced search

Next page . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 2 Hansard (23 February) . . Page.. 451..


MR SESELJA (continuing):

When did she first see that? When did she become aware of that? Has she checked that? And I find it extraordinary that Ms Gallagher, who is one of the subjects of this motion, is not here to put her side of the story, to actually enlighten the Assembly, as she was given the opportunity to do last week, about her views on the subject, about whether she believes that Mr Sullivan has acted appropriately and whether she acted appropriately. Did she get this information? When did she get it? What did she do with it?

These are the basic questions that we would expect to have answered, and Ms Gallagher has not even shown the Assembly due consideration and due courtesy by coming down and putting that case. I would expect that the Treasurer would do that. She should be doing it as part of this debate so that we can have a full and informed debate, because the Greens are arguing for Ms Gallagher to be taken out of the equation here. But we have not heard from Ms Gallagher about any of the information. So I think it would have been useful if we had had a full, informed debate about that aspect before removing Ms Gallagher from Mrs Dunne's motion.

It appears that that is the way that it will go, that the motion will be amended to that effect. But Ms Gallagher needs to explain what information she had, whether she was satisfied, whether she checked the record and whether there is anything that needs to be corrected.

There is a pattern from this government, and we have seen it over a number of years. This latest example of an Assembly committee getting misleading information is important and is worth consideration of the Assembly. (Time expired.)

MR SPEAKER: Members, before we proceed, I would just like to clarify some comments I made earlier regarding the charges by Mr Stanhope, I think it was, that Mrs Dunne misled the Assembly and whether that matter can be debated or not. In order to make the charge that Mrs Dunne had misled the Assembly, there would need to be a substantive motion. The advice I have received since that earlier debate is that simply amending the motion to include Mrs Dunne will not amount to a substantive motion. So any suggestion that Mrs Dunne has misled the Assembly would need to be done separately.

MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (11.04): Mr Speaker, thank you for your ruling. I seek leave to move my amendments to Ms Bresnan's proposed amendment to Mrs Dunne's motion together.

Leave granted.

MR CORBELL: I move the amendments circulated in my name:

(1) insert "and Mrs Vicki Dunne MLA"after "ACTEW Corporation"; and

(2) insert "and assertions made"after "evidence given", first occurring.


Next page . . Previous page. . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search


If you have special accessibility requirements in accessing information on this website,
please contact the Assembly on (02) 6205 0439 or send an email toOLA@parliament.act.gov.au
Accessibility | Copyright and Disclaimer Notice | Privacy Policy
© Legislative Assembly for the ACT