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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2004) . . Page.. 1826 ..

This is what Mr Castle does: he is a busy man. Six seconds of silence: “I am going to listen to the Chief Minister’s phone for six seconds.” Perhaps, Mr Quinlan, you should get your facts straight before you come in here and say something that is just wrong. Yes, I like the blush. The blush is good on you; it suits you.

Mr Stanhope said that we have come in here and asserted that he is personally responsible for the fire; that he is some colossus who had the ability to stop it. We have not said that. I do not think anybody in this place, on this side or on the crossbench, said that he is personally responsible for the fire. What we have been querying is the misleading. The impression I get is that the people of Canberra do not want blame; they want someone to take responsibility; and they want to know why they were not warned. They have got complaints about personal responsibility for the fire.

I have actually read the paper. That said the fire was started by a lightning strike. So unless Jon Stanhope is the lightning-maker, or Jon Stanhope is a colossus lightning god that he could have started the fire, Mr Speaker—because we all know that that day from Young in south-eastern New South Wales through to Walhalla in Victoria there were about 120 to 140 lightning strikes—or Jon Stanhope’s lightning god was very busy, he did not start the fire. I have read the paper, and the paper said lightning strike. I have never seen Jon riding around on a cloud. It is a fairly reasonable assumption he is not the lightning god.

We have been careful about the coronial inquiry, but if you read your House of Representatives Practice you will see that coronial inquiries occupy an interesting place in the sub judice recommendations. It is below a court; and assemblies, houses of parliament, still do have precedent. We all need to be careful. But we have not talked about the cause of death, we have not talked about the cause of ignition, and that is not in dispute. The coroner has already given her first report on the cause of death and we await the rest of it. So let’s put aside that smokescreen from the Chief Minister, because that is all it is.

This is the smokescreen. Let’s go to what Mr Quinlan said. The first thing was: “I’ve called; I’ve called the boss’s phone.” Well, I actually did not have the time, otherwise I might have tested that because we thought about that. But the reality is the six seconds occurs after the message finishes. There was a call for six seconds. You cannot refute the record.

The return call is supposition because the Chief Minister has a memory index loss, so it is selective. Memory index loss apparently is a selective condition now that allows you to remember some things and not other things. So we have got this sort of changeable condition that mutates to fit what you have said. That is what a memory index loss is. It is a moveable condition.

As for the Keady call: the defence on the Keady call, according to Mr Quinlan, is that Mr Keady spoke to the Canberra Times and what he told the Canberra Times he told them at—

Mr Quinlan: Mr Castle. Get it straight.

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