Page 849 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 27 February 2013

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

What about Mr Quinlan? Remember him? He left so that Mr Barr could come in here. What did Mr Quinlan do? He went off to greener pastures and he gets the odd job to do. There was the Quinlan review—triple your rates. It was: “Back us up; we want to have an attack on the family home and we will get Mr Quinlan to come in and write our stuff for us.” That was all good then. That was not a betrayal, was it? No, it was not back then. It was all, I imagine, a pat on the back: “You have done a great job, Ted.” It was: “We love you. You are a Labor mate; we will give you jobs in the future. Don’t worry about it.” There was no betrayal then!

But here is somebody who is saying, “I want to step up and represent the people of Canberra.” And that will continue to be the people of Lanyon. I think that what we will see—

Members interjecting—

MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, can I ask you to sit down for a minute. Members, could I ask you to listen to the speaker. No discussions across the chamber, please. Mr Hanson, please continue.

MR HANSON: I think what we will see, if Mr Seselja is successful, is a continued focus on the things that matter to the people of the ACT—to the people of Lanyon, the people in Belconnen, wherever it may be. He will take a broader focus. Instead of the sort of work that he has done here, the focus on service delivery and infrastructure will continue on, be it here or elsewhere.

While we are reflecting on this motion, I would also like to make it very clear that there have been a number of attacks on Mr Seselja. This is one of them—this grubby, politically motivated attack. I have asked Mr Seselja to stay on in this place on my frontbench because I would take Mr Seselja over any of those members opposite—any of those. I would certainly take him over Dr Bourke or anyone who left the Assembly, like Ted Quinlan or Jon Stanhope. I would take Mr Seselja over any of them.

In this place, over the coming weeks and months, he will continue to do what he has done previously: stand up and represent the people of Lanyon. He will do that. Then at some stage he will leave this place and he will contest the Senate. I am sure he will be successful. And then he will continue to do that. If you lot opposite think that that is a betrayal, you are misguided. You know it is. This is politically motivated.

Unless you want to move an amendment that calls for a condemnation of Jon Stanhope for betraying the people of Ginninderra or Ted Quinlan for betraying the people of Molonglo, everybody should see this for what it is. It is a disingenuous, grubby, politically motivated attack on Zed Seselja. What it is doing is detracting from what we should be about in this place: focusing on the people of Lanyon.

MS GALLAGHER (Molonglo—Chief Minister, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Health and Minister for Higher Education) (3.45): I will briefly respond to some of the issues that have been raised in the debate. I acknowledge Mr Hanson,

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