Page 1943 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 25 June 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
play—three sites: not one, not two, but three—and all sites were subject to further consideration. Any suggestion that there was an attempt by the government to try and push or create a situation where only one site was made available is simply incorrect. On Mr Seselja’s point No 1, he has no argument.
In relation to point No 2, Mr Seselja asserts that the government has mismanaged the process of the data centre and the power plant and jeopardised over $1 billion in investment. I simply draw Mr Seselja’s attention again to the front page of the Canberra Times today. There it is quite clear that the government has continued to take steps to ensure that the site for a power station is still available and that that investment will remain in the ACT. Of course, it will not remain in the ACT thanks to the help of those opposite; if they had their way, it would not be here at all.
Members interjecting—
THE SPEAKER: Order, members!
MR CORBELL: Indeed, we heard the first murmurings of the argument of Mr Smyth earlier that they will even oppose Williamsdale.
Mrs Burke: That is where it should have been in the beginning.
THE SPEAKER: Mrs Burke!
MR CORBELL: They will seek to talk down the prospect of its development at that location as well. Mr Smyth described it as an artifice; Mr Smyth described it as just a ploy.
Mr Seselja: The timing was a little bit interesting, wasn’t it, Simon?
MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Seselja!
MR CORBELL: That just shows how sincere—or should I say insincere?—they are when it comes to truly supporting this project. On point No 2, Mr Seselja has no argument.
In relation to point No 3, Mr Seselja suggests that the Chief Minister sought to withhold information through the Freedom of Information Act. As has been put forward by my colleagues, and as members opposite should know, Mr Stanhope is not involved in decisions relating to release of information under the Freedom of Information Act. I think—I would hope—that is beyond dispute. How can you accuse a minister of withholding information when the decision about which information will be made available through FOI is not his to make? How can you accuse the minister of that? You cannot. Mr Seselja has been caught out on this issue because the document that he suggested he did not have was in fact in his possession on the morning of the estimates committee hearing—
Mrs Dunne: You did not listen.
MR CORBELL: And you can see that from this document.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .