Page 4039 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 13 December 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR SPEAKER: Order! Sit down! I will not have this debate develop into a screaming match. Either you direct your comments through me, Mr Seselja, or I will order you to resume your seat. Mr Corbell, cease interjecting.
MR SESELJA: Mr Speaker, thank you. That would be unheard of, shutting down someone when they are responding to a censure. Mr Corbell has been consistently interjecting.
Mr Stanhope: Well, grow up then.
MR SESELJA: Grow up? That is very good, Jon.
Mr Stanhope: Act at least your age.
MR SPEAKER: Order!
MR SESELJA: Yes, yes. That is very impressive, Jon. Mr Speaker, what Mr Corbell did not want to get out here is the fact that he has been wrong. He has been stating that it was clear, and it simply was not. We saw that all through the process: Mr Corbell and his agencies have been so accountable in this process that they have sought to shut down scrutiny at every turn. At every turn, they have sought to shut down scrutiny. We saw them fighting to suppress documents in the AAT. We saw the extraordinary situation where we had a secret estimates hearing for the first time and Mr Corbell had to bring his lawyer along in order to answer questions. That is unheard of. That is how open he has been on this. That is how confident he has been from the start in the probity of this process: he has sought to shut down scrutiny.
He wrote to the planning and environment committee and said, “Don’t release those documents.” They fought them in the AAT. They had secret hearings in the estimates process. This has been a minister—
Mr Corbell: They were legal documents.
MR SESELJA: It was not just legal documents; there was a whole range of documents, a whole range of things they sought to suppress, which in the end we had to squeeze out of this government.
This minister has been afraid to face scrutiny on this. He has been obstinate in his approach, which is why the Auditor-General had to investigate. Then in the end we have a situation where the Auditor-General says that it is simply not clear what is in the territory plan. She even raises the prospect that the NCA is going to find that it does not comply with the national capital plan. It clearly should have been clarified. The report says that it would have been better to add an addendum. There was advice from the ACT government solicitor, prior to the auction, making that very suggestion. So they were advised: “Why don’t you clarify it? It’s not clear; so why don’t you clarify it?”
On some of the other points that Mr Corbell has raised he talks about no evidence. Well, we had a letter from ING asking for clarification of the territory plan. What
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .