Page 799 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 9 March 2005

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

Non-Urban Implementation Needs—Cultural Revolution—Extract from Canberra Liberals web page—News, 5 November 2003.

Extract from Hansard Edited Proof Transcript, 8 March 2005.

Personal explanations

MR MULCAHY (Molonglo): Mr Speaker, it seems, in response, this is the second time I have—

MR SPEAKER: Mr Mulcahy, for you to speak—

MR MULCAHY: I am addressing the standing order and the misrepresentation issue, if I may, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: You will have to get leave from me to speak first.

MR MULCAHY: With leave.

MR SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing order 46, I presume.

MR MULCAHY: Pursuant to standing order 46, yes, I am sorry. Again, the Chief Minister has left the chamber when I am trying to explain the facts. I did in my comment, looking at the Hansard extract draft, ask why the Chief Minister had embarked on a particular budget strategy. He dwelt on the word “significantly”. I did not attribute the word significantly by way of quotation to him, but rather that was forecast. If Mr Stanhope wants to take issue with the word “significantly”, I have no quarrel.

Indeed, Mr Speaker, I went on, when I raised this matter under standing order 46, to put the specific quotation in there. When it was clearly explained in the Canberra Times that he was faced with the option of increasing charges or reducing services, his words were: “charging more or doing less”.

I have subsequently spoken with the political roundsman for the Canberra Times who has confirmed for me that it is a precise quote, and that is the precise quote I used. The broader strategy I referred to by way of forecast was the clear sentiment from the article, and I expressed it as a forecast strategy. I certainly did not quote him as having said “significantly”—I do not know what tax increases are not—but I believe that I have put the matter correctly on the record.

I am sorry the Chief Minister has left the chamber and did not hear that. I have confirmed it with the Canberra Times reporter who said the quotation he used and the one I have referred to in Hansard are accurate.

Canberra women

Discussion of matter of public importance

MR SPEAKER: I have received letters from Dr Foskey and Ms Porter proposing that matters of public importance be submitted to the Assembly. In accordance with standing

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