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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2004) . . Page.. 1829 ..

different sources, has obviously had a little bit of conflict. But that could have been put to rest this morning.

They are the sorts of reasons why we do not like the downgrading of this motion. But I want the Chief Minister to understand that he is on notice, that he has been found wanting by this place, that we have grave concern about his behaviour, and we will all watch how the coronial inquiries unfold and I am sure that we will all take on board information that is brought to us by constituents out there who will often inform members of parliament as to their views of what is going on.

MR SPEAKER: Before you speak, Mr Cornwell: I was lenient with the Chief Minister and with the Leader of the Opposition in relation to speaking to the amendment, but I am not going to be with you. So if you want to speak to the matter I want you to confine your remarks to Ms Dundas’s amendment.

MR CORNWELL (4.37): Thanks, Mr Speaker. I reluctantly support Ms Dundas’s amendment. I do so because first of all I think that the original motion should be progressed. But, secondly, in relation to the amendment moved by Ms Dundas: it still does not seek explanations for numbers of matters that have been raised. The problem I have, therefore, is that there is nothing here to call for the Chief Minister to explain some of the matters that have been canvassed previously.

I am particularly interested in the Red Hill problem. I find it interesting that Mrs Cross and I—and I understand there is a third person known to a radio station—three separate people have made allegations about your being there, Chief Minister. You have said that you were not there. This statement was made at approximately 4.10 this afternoon. I really do not know why it was not denied earlier. That is the question I have. It seems a simple matter. If you were not there, then you were not there. These people however have come forward in good faith—

MR SPEAKER: Come back to the amendment, please, Mr Cornwell.

MR CORNWELL: Yes, Mr Speaker. I am saying that there is no request within the amendment for an explanation of what was happening that has held your coming back here until 10 past 4 this afternoon to explain why this was not refuted earlier. I understand that you were aware of the comments this morning because you were contacted, your office was contacted, for a response to the suggestion that I passed on that you had been seen on Red Hill. I understood that your office was contacted this morning about it, but I frankly would have expected you to have referred to it in your opening address today, which you did not. I find that rather difficult to comprehend. I think that, therefore, it does require a little more explanation. I also think that an explanation is called for as to why your party threatened to sue the radio station if I was interviewed this afternoon by them in relation to this Red Hill matter. Again, I do not know your reasons for it.

Mr Stanhope: It is called defamation.

MR CORNWELL: Well, you had the opportunity to respond, Chief Minister.

Mr Hargreaves: What part of “respond” do not you understand? It is defamation.

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