Page 2937 - Week 11 - Thursday, 22 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Unfortunately, this debate really comes as no surprise to me, because I have to say, and I say it kindly, that misleading comments are becoming quite a feature of this place; comments which later lead to all sorts of misunderstandings. I am afraid that I have to give as two examples comments made in this place by the Chief Minister in answer to questions. For example, on 12 December 1991 Mr Duby asked, in relation to the casino project, whether the money from the premium would be directed to cultural facilities on section 19 in Civic rather than community facilities such as the Tuggeranong pool. The Chief Minister explained - - -
Mr Connolly: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.
MR CORNWELL: Now, just a moment.
Mr Connolly: One would have to ask about the relevance.
MR CORNWELL: Madam Speaker, I am trying to demonstrate - - -
Mr Connolly: This is a censure motion about a particular alleged misleading statement. He is now talking about something else entirely.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Connolly, I will await the further development of the speech to judge that one. Please continue, Mr Cornwell.
MR CORNWELL: The Chief Minister then stated in answer to Mr Duby that she believed that the commitment on the cultural facilities had been given in the context of the casino on section 19. That is perfectly in order. She then said, "It does not necessarily apply in the current circumstances". She was then asked by Mr Duby:
Does that mean that the $19m will not be spent on cultural activities?
She replied:
I can confirm that it will be spent on community facilities.
We can argue, as she responded yesterday, that it was going to be used on community cultural facilities. Nevertheless, the 12 December answer gives rise to misleading statements, in my belief.
Ms Follett: I raise a point of order. Madam Speaker, we are dealing with one matter of substance here. I think that, if Mr Cornwell wants to deal with another matter of substance, then he must move a substantive motion on that matter.
Mr Humphries: May I address you on the point of order, Madam Speaker?
MADAM SPEAKER: Yes, I will indulge you.
Mr Humphries: Madam Speaker, the motion is that Ms Follett and Mr Wood be censured. There is no reference to Cook and Lyons primary schools. Although that has been the main thrust of the argument so far, there is nothing to exclude the Opposition raising in the course of this debate a number of matters which touch on that question - that is, whether the Ministers should be censured. I would submit, therefore, that what Mr Cornwell has to say is very relevant.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .