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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2006 Week 13 Hansard (13 December) . . Page.. 4043..


Mr Corbell: Mr Speaker, Mr Mulcahy just made a comment that I was misleading again.

Mr Mulcahy: No, I said "are you".

MR SPEAKER: Well—

Mr Corbell: That is an imputation—clearly an imputation, Mr Speaker—and Mr Mulcahy should withdraw it.

MR SPEAKER: I did not hear you say that, Mr Mulcahy, but, if you said that, it might be economical for you to withdraw it rather than have me look at the tape.

Mr Mulcahy: Yes, Mr Speaker. I know that to state that would have been inappropriate, but I simply asked the question.

MR SPEAKER: Well, did you say it?

Mr Corbell: It is an imputation.

Mr Mulcahy: I just said, "Are you misleading?"

MR SPEAKER: Well, that is an imputation. Withdraw it.

Mr Mulcahy: All right. I withdraw the imputation.

MR SPEAKER: We have got a substantive motion before the chamber. Members can refer to what the substantive motion says at any time. To stray outside that motion with stronger imputations I think should be avoided.

DR FOSKEY: Anyway, just to sum up: there is absolutely nothing in that letter that says that I believe that anybody involved was actually the result of bureaucratic incompetence or deliberate malfeasance.

Mr Stanhope: If somebody said it about you, you would think there was something in it—that you were either incompetent or corrupt.

DR FOSKEY: The word "corruption"was never even mentioned. Later on when we get to the next debate on this issue we will talk more about the report. But Mr Corbell made three comments accusing, I think, both Mr Seselja and me. Firstly, he said that we accused the agencies of preferential treatment. That is not there in that letter—and by the way this is a letter to the Auditor-General; it was not a public document. I just do not see where this requirement for me to apologise to the community comes from. I apologise to you if you feel I have made imputations that are incorrect. But I feel that I am just doing my job, basically.

In terms of preferential treatment, paragraph 2.85 on page 32 of the Auditor-General's report states:


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