Page 200 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 8 December 2004
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Attorney-General. So what Mrs Burke and Mr Mulcahy said was absolute rot. It does not matter in terms of the timing and—
Mrs Burke: No. It was more than 100, Mr Quinlan. You seem to forget. There are 500 homes gone.
MR QUINLAN: Would you mind shutting up?
MR SPEAKER: Order, Mrs Burke!
MR QUINLAN: It does not matter whether or not the—
Mrs Burke: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I will take it for so long, but Mr Quinlan can just retract that. I am continually told by Mr Quinlan to shut up. I ask that he withdraw that comment.
MR SPEAKER: Yes, it is unparliamentary, Mr Quinlan.
MR QUINLAN: Is it? Fair dinkum?
Mrs Burke: Come on. Just get on with it.
MR QUINLAN: I will withdraw that but I would like it noted for the record that it is unparliamentary from this day on, and I would ask, Mr Speaker, that Mrs Burke’s continued carping come to your notice.
Mrs Burke: You can do it without a comment.
MR QUINLAN: What Mrs Burke and others have said today is utter nonsense. It was all “tug on the heartstrings” stuff that has no basis in logic—and not for the first time. The delays and the costs we are talking about will happen anyway. You lot even accept that the nine individuals affected have the right to do so and you have no objection to their running an appeal. So all of your argument collapses. What is left then is that the attorney, having been furnished with the opinion of an eminent jurist, had to decide whether the government would join in that action or not. The action would take place anyway, and that becomes a yes or no decision. He has to then say, “You’ve been furnished with an advice that says there is a problem with the process that is occurring.”
The attorney then took the only decision available to him, to say, “Well, here I have an opinion that says there is a problem.” As the attorney said earlier, that is a matter of record. Why don’t you read it? Read it and know that there was an expert opinion that said that there is a problem. So the attorney is faced with a choice of saying, “I do not believe there is a problem” or “There is a problem but I will ignore it.” I do not think he had many alternatives once he arrived in that position, and he therefore did what I think was the appropriate thing.
A lot has been said in the public forum about the delay and the extra expense. Some of the letters read into Hansard today said that it is the Attorney-General’s fault that there will be delay and additional expense. And you lot would be happy to perpetuate that, even though it is not true. It is just not the case. We had Mr Stefaniak accusing
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .