Page 1947 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 25 June 2008

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

MR SMYTH: Mr Speaker, on the point of order: the amendment says, “Get rid of paragraph 2 and paragraph 4.” Mr Corbell just gave us a litany. In speaking to the amendment, in relation to paragraph 1, he said things like “thanks to the Canberra Times”; in relation to paragraph 3, he said “not responsible”; in relation to paragraph 4, he talked about the residents.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Smyth, you should not use points of order to agitate debate either.

MR SMYTH: I am just discussing this amendment.

MR SPEAKER: The question before the house is that Mr Mulcahy’s amendment be agreed to, and I would ask members to confine themselves to the subject matter of the amendment.

MR SMYTH: I certainly am, Mr Speaker. Mr Corbell gave commentary, and he certainly talked about paragraphs 2 and 4, and that is simply what I am going to talk about.

MR SPEAKER: It is not about what Mr Corbell said, it is about—

MR SMYTH: At the heart of this, Mr Corbell said we had not made the case. And at the heart of this, Mr Corbell made the following comments. He criticised Mr Seselja for criticising the government for saying that cost is not a consideration and then went on to say that it was. Indeed, Mr Corbell said the words he used were: “It is a factor when you make these decisions.” Indeed, Mr Corbell went one step further. Mr Corbell actually said, talking about the Chief Minister, “He would be negligent if he had not taken this into consideration.”

In seeking to omit paragraphs 2 and 4, Mr Mulcahy contends that we never made the case. Mr Corbell has asked for the evidence, and I want to—

MR SPEAKER: You seem to ignore the fact that Mr Corbell was speaking on the motion and the amendments.

MR SMYTH: But I am talking about what Mr Mulcahy also said in trying to get rid of paragraphs 2 and 4. Mr Corbell has said, and Mr Mulcahy has said, the case has not been made.

Let us make the case on one issue, whether or not price was a consideration. The Chief Minister said, in estimates on 16 June 2008, at page 1208:

… Madam Chair, I can confirm absolutely that suggestions that either I or the government took into account the respective valuations or returns to government in relation to the selection of one particular site over another are spurious and false.

And this is at the heart of what we are talking about today. Somebody here is now misleading. It is either Mr Stanhope or it might be Mr Corbell, because Mr Corbell just said—and we all heard him say—that Mr Seselja—

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