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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Thursday, 24 June 2004) . . Page.. 2610 ..

something yesterday. I have to say that yesterday—I’ll just digress on this—was perhaps, for good governance, one of the worst days I’ve experienced in this place. It was, truly. And I think you need to take a deep breath and understand what happened yesterday. Everybody in this place needs to do that in terms of the capacity of governments to govern—and this is more of it, that a minister should be asked to resign on the basis of statements he made.

Before we get all holier than thou about statements that the Minister for Health might or might not have made, how they should be interpreted and whether or not he should resign, everybody in this place makes statements that are not true, and the fact that those statements are not true are brought to their attention. Yesterday, I heard a number of members in this place in a number of speeches insist that I had changed this government’s targets in relation to greenhouse gas reductions. I challenge anybody in this place to point to a statement where I said this government was no longer committed to greenhouse gas targets.

I heard a number of members in this place say it yesterday. I drew to their attention that those statements were not true. Not a single member withdrew their comments. Those comments are untrue. I have concerns about our capacity to achieve the targets, but I have not abandoned them or walked away from them. Yet I was reported in the media as having done so. That statement is not true, but it has not been withdrawn. And I drew to the members’ attention yesterday that those statements were not true.

I heard the Leader of the Opposition yesterday state emphatically that I was afraid of targets, that I would not commit to targets. He explicitly drew attention to the fact that the social plan does not contain targets. The social plan contains hard, tough, explicit targets. Yesterday in the Assembly—and the Leader of the Opposition must have known that that statement wasn’t true—I heard him say it; it’s in the Hansard.

Have a look at Mr Smyth’s speech yesterday in the debate on greenhouse gas targets and see if Mr Smyth said, “The Chief Minister won’t commit to targets in the social plan.” Get yesterday’s Hansard, have a look at Mr Smyth’s speech on the greenhouse motion of Ms Tucker’s and see if Mr Smyth said, “The Chief Minister will not commit to targets at all and has refused to commit to targets in the social plan.” Get the social plan out and see if the social plan contains any targets. It contains hard, tough, explicit targets. Get the water strategy out and see if the water strategy contains any targets. But get Mr Smyth’s speech yesterday and see what Mr Smyth said about targets and me.

What’s the process for moving a motion of no confidence in the Leader of the Opposition in relation to those gross and blatant misleads of the Assembly that he engaged in yesterday?

Mr Quinlan: The party sorted him out.

MR STANHOPE: Yes, it’s perhaps not for us; it perhaps is for Mr Stefaniak. Mr Stefaniak knows, but as the reluctant bridesmaid, he is twice as popular in the electorate as Mr Smyth. But ultimately, I guess, it’s a matter for the electorate. And I’m sure the electorate will pass judgment and will do it appropriately. They will do it on the basis of absurd, pathetic, nonsensical motions such as this.

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