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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2004) . . Page.. 1835 ..

the Leader of the Opposition. He revealed the contemptuous piece of fabrication for what it was. So what happens? You can always tell when we touch a nerve because not only does the volume go up but also the pitch: when they are upset they sound like the Vienna Boys’ Choir.

MR SPEAKER: Order members! Mr Hargreaves, direct your comments through the Speaker.

MR HARGREAVES: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker; I am having a great time. The issue now at heart—because these guys have folded—is whether this Assembly wishes to express grave concern over the fact that the Chief Minister could not remember something that happened 16 months ago.

Mr Smyth: No; that he has repeatedly misled—

MR HARGREAVES: I do beg your pardon: he forgot to check his phone records of 16 months ago. The fact is that when you have a memory lapse you usually need a flag to kick it off. Sixteen months is neither here nor there. Without a flag it could have been three months; six months or 12 months. When the flag went up the Chief Minister had the records checked. As soon as the flag went up the records were checked. As soon as the problem was revealed he went straight to the chamber and did it.

Instead of moving motions expressing grave concern—like the lily-livered bunch over there; they want to have a no-confidence motion—we should be saying, “Yes, there’s the bar. The Chief Minister’s recognised the bar and he’s come in here and he stepped over it. Thank you very much for that.” We should be saying, “Thanks for that example.” This Chief Minister has done something that your lot could not do.

A point was recently made about the sin. What was Mr Stanhope’s sin? It was a sin of omission; not commission. He did not deliberately forget the content of that phone call. He did not deliberately take out an overnight loan.

At 5.00 pm, in accordance with standing order 34, the debate was interrupted. The motion for the adjournment of the Assembly having been put and negatived, the debate was resumed.

MR HARGREAVES: The Chief Minister did not deliberately take out an overnight loan illegally. He did not deliberately go away and blame his public servants for hospital implosions or for over-expenditure at Bruce Stadium. We are talking about the Chief Minister’s culpability, if you wish, relative to Ms Dundas’s amendment. Did the Chief Minister deliberately try to give away cheap land at Kinlyside to one of his mates? No. Did he deliberately try to fool the people of the ACT about V8 car races? No. It is a matter of omission.

Mrs Dunne: I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. It relates to relevance. Mr Hargreaves is rabbiting on about issues not pertinent to the debate or to the amendment. He would like to deflect the debate from the issues. Hall/Kinlyside is not relevant to this debate.

MR SPEAKER: Come to the amendment, Mr Hargreaves.

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