Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 23 February 2010) . . Page.. 446 ..
He said: “I didn’t really mislead. I gave a correct answer that was not correct because I hadn’t asked.” He had not bothered to ask. So we see why Mr Corbell would want to defend this kind of behaviour, because he is engaged in it himself. Even this morning he has had to come back and correct the record in this place for misleading the Assembly on the insulation program.
We saw it in relation to the power station. We saw there had to be a recall because incorrect information had been given; misleading information had been given to an Assembly committee.
Mr Corbell: Relevance, Mr Speaker, on a point of order. The substantive motion is about the comments of Mr Sullivan and, if the opposition has its way, Ms Gallagher. It is not about what I have done three or four years ago or even as late as this morning. It is certainly not about a power station proposal. It is about the matters before us in the motion. And I would ask you to draw Mr Seselja to order. If he does not have arguments about the substantive motion then obviously he has got a pretty weak case.
MR SESELJA: Mr Speaker, on the point of order, this is about establishing a pattern. And we have been going through the detail.
Mr Corbell: No. On the point of order—
MR SESELJA: Actually, I am answering the point of order. Why don’t you sit down—
Mr Corbell: No, it is not about establishing a pattern. It is not about establishing—
MR SESELJA: Why don’t you sit down—
MR SPEAKER: On the point of order, Mr Seselja.
MR SESELJA: I am responding particularly to Mr Corbell’s defence of Mr Sullivan and the kinds of standards that this government engages in, in terms of giving truthful evidence, and we are coming to the detail.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you. Mr Corbell, on the point of order?
Mr Corbell: Mr Speaker, it is not about establishing a pattern of behaviour. This is not some prosecution of the government as a whole. This is an attempt by the opposition to bring a senior public servant and a minister before a privileges committee, in very particular circumstances, and they need to make their case in relation to that matter, not broad sweeping arguments about the behaviour of government as a whole. That is not relevant to the debate, and Mr Seselja should stay relevant.
MR SPEAKER: Yes. Mr Seselja, I am inclined towards Mr Corbell’s point of order. I was thinking of it before he raised it. I am aware that you are obviously trying to set some context but I would ask you to come to the point of the substantive motion.