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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 4 Hansard (7 May) . . Page.. 1048 ..

Mr Kaine: Do you want me to spend 10 minutes now?

MRS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, this is either a dispute between two unions or a dispute between the contractor and the union that has absolutely nothing to do with anything but which union various people belong to. Of all the contracts that have gone out for the demolition on Acton Peninsula, some have gone to local companies; some have not. It has all been done on an open tender approach. In this particular case, City and Country have some expertise that is not widely held amongst local contractors and, at the end of the day, for such a project we had to get the people who gave us the best quote and also had the expertise.

MR BERRY: Mr Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I note that Mrs Carnell seems to have admitted that she misled the Assembly, but I did not hear the apology. I did not hear the apology for what she agrees was a deliberate misleading of the Assembly. Will you now admit that your misleading statements were merely an attempt to hide the full effects of your mismanagement of the Acton Peninsula demolition contracts, that work for local companies and local workers has not been the focus of the contract arrangements, and that this whole episode demonstrates the farce of your so-called Jobs for Canberra policy?

MR SPEAKER: Ignore the inference, Mrs Carnell. It is out of order.

MRS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, if we are talking about misleading the Assembly, from Mr Berry's initial question everyone could have assumed that somehow this contractor was coming in with all out-of-town employees. He did not indicate at all that this out-of-town contractor had employed local people, did he? If we are looking at misleading, this is misleading.

MR SPEAKER: A misleading statement.

Mr Berry: Mr Speaker, can I prevail upon you to have the Chief Minister answer the supplementary question instead of delivering another bucketful of tired old rhetoric. I know that you like to let them have their way, but would you insist upon them answering the question.

MR SPEAKER: I let everybody have their way, within standing orders. I have already suggested that the misleading allegation from Mr Berry should be ignored because it is an inference, and that is out of order, in terms of rules for questions; but you may answer the rest of the supplementary question, Mrs Carnell.

Mr Berry: Mr Speaker, on a point of order, I protest. You adopted the view that I had made a misleading statement.

MR SPEAKER: No; I said that your remark about misleading was an inference, which is out of order under standing order 117(b)(iii).

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