Page 156 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 15 February 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
relates to capital works generally. I would ask you to draw Mr Mulcahy to order in terms of relevance.
MR MULCAHY: Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, the purpose of what I am illustrating is to underline the point of the demonstrated business case for this capital works and our capacity, therefore, to proceed with any such project. It is very relevant, I suggest, to look at the capital costs involved in Mr Corbell’s ideas.
MADAM TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Dunne): Mr Corbell, part (2) of the motion expresses concern about the expenditure of millions of dollars on planning for the busway; so I would have thought that reflections upon the capacity to fund that were entirely relevant. I am sure that Mr Mulcahy will keep the terms of the motion and the terms of the amendment in mind when he speaks, as he is speaking to both.
MR MULCAHY: We are looking here at the financial issues involved in this idea, which, as Mr Seselja has rightly pointed out, are matters of grave concern and we need to say, “In the context of what this territory is capable of now doing, are these investments of millions of dollars on this busway something that this territory can sustain?” If we are delaying other major capital works such as the prison, the refurbishment of the convention centre and the like because we cannot afford to proceed as previously planned, then it begs the question that we cannot afford to embrace this monument—and that is what it is; it is a ministerial monument—that has been advanced out there with great gusto and enthusiasm.
I also pick up the point about South America. What Mr Smyth and I were interjecting was not a reflection on South America. It is a great part of the world, and I enjoy a very good relationship with the representatives of those countries in Canberra. I wish the minister the best of British luck if he is paving the way for a trip there. Given the minister’s propensity to embark on these taxpayer-funded exercises, it gave us the sense that there may be another one in the wings. If he can learn something from travelling to the four corners of the world, then so be it.
Mr Corbell: How were drinkies in Melbourne the other night, Mr Mulcahy?
MR MULCAHY: If Mr Corbell wants to reflect on my attendance, unlike his arts minister, alongside a Canberra nominee who was nationally recognised—
MADAM TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Mulcahy, do that in the adjournment debate. That would be the best place to do it.
MR MULCAHY: All right. I will move back to that.
Mr Corbell: Your travel is all right but mine is not.
MADAM TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Corbell, cease interjecting.
MR MULCAHY: I am happy to defend mine. I wish we could get you to table your expenditure. The question must be, as Mr Seselja has rightly pointed out, about expressing concern at the expenditure of millions of dollars—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .