Page 1954 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 25 June 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Seselja has sought to make something of the fact that an officer of the Land Development Agency, in an email to a colleague, document 11, requests that a brief be prepared to apprise Mr Dawes of the Chief Minister’s Department of the “threat to the Actew initiative and the industrial land supply” and that the implications for industrial land supply must be taken into account. All factors are taken into account. However, this does not change the simple fact that ActewAGL themselves made the final site selection.
Industrial land supply is an issue for the ACT, but the evidence of the correspondence of 19 July and the accompanying brief make it clear that block 7 section 21 was still firmly on the table. It was not removed from the mix by anyone and no strong-arm tactics were used to influence ActewAGL’s decision. All the advice given was given on a professional basis and served merely to outline all relevant issues—not to elevate one over others.
The tabling of these documents by Mr Seselja and his interpretation of these events prove nothing other than the ability of an inexperienced politician to draw the wrong conclusions, ignore evidence to the contrary already put to him and others, and construct an argument on nothing more substantial than a house of cards.
As I said before, Mr Seselja is about politics and not good governance and I think that you can see that from this discussion that we are having today. Mrs Dunne stands in this place and uses her position as past deputy chair of the Select Committee on Estimates to accuse the Chief Minister of misleading the committee. One would imagine, if this were the case, that in the report that the committee has now publicly made available there would be a notation, at least, that there was a mislead. But there was no notation, and, again, no recommendation—just pages and pages of text in Hansard of those opposite going down rabbit hole after rabbit hole, after something that is not there.
I recall Mr Stanhope saying on the final day of the hearings that the opposition was living in “Alice in wonderland” and, truly, we have heard Mrs Burke say “once upon a time”. I am sure we all recall Alice, who fell down the rabbit hole and found herself in a world that made no sense. There is no sense in any of what Mrs Dunne and the opposition have been saying today. I would like to ask anybody in this place if they could make any sense of the things that have been said by those opposite. What I have noticed today, and what I noticed when we were in estimates, is that the opposition were continually going round and round in circles, down that rabbit warren, around that rabbit warren, looking for something that was not there. I am sure that we all felt we were living in “Alice in wonderland”; I certainly thought I was.
As I said, Mr Seselja is on about politics and not good governance. Mr Stanhope, on the other hand, can hold his head high today as a man of integrity, a man of vision, a man who works tirelessly for the common good of all Canberrans. That is why I am not supporting the motion and will not be supporting the amendments.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (5.06): I would like to speak to the amendment that was moved by Mr Mulcahy. I am very pleased that Mr Mulcahy is at least agreeing with me that there should be a censure motion, but I am also very disappointed that he
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .