Page 4054 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 13 December 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
are either incompetent or corrupt. As far as I am concerned, Dr Foskey, that is an actionable defamation. You have identified a group of public servants as either incompetent or corrupt. You should do the right thing. You should at least apologise. When I reflect on the nature of your allegations, I am not sure whether the motion should not perhaps have been rather stronger than it is.
Mr Seselja now seeks to use the classic Pontius Pilate response: “I was just doing my job. I was not creating an atmosphere. I was not out there actually spreading information or a message or creating a scandal that has no basis in fact.” I have not been through the Hansard yet—I am happy to do that—or the transcripts of Mr Sesleja’s leader interviews. All we have at this stage are his press releases, and I would imagine they are the most benign of all his public statements. But it is on the record.
Let us go to his press releases. This has been a year-long campaign to create and generate scandal, to seek to embroil the minister and agencies of this government in scandal with subtle suggestions and subliminal messages of corruption, a lack of probity, a desire to do deals for mates, actually to upset the planning regime, its rigour and its absolute integrity—an integrity that has never before been questioned whilst we have been in government. And it has worked. I have seen the letters to the editor saying that this is a corrupt process and commenting on allegations of corruption in relation to EpiCentre. You have tainted the process. The mud has been spread. It has been smeared and it can never be completely cleaned.
The Auditor-General has gone part way to remedy that. Her opinions, which you have conveniently ignored, are the opinions that matter. You have ignored the opinions. You have gone to some fine print—
Mr Seselja: I quoted from the opinion.
MR STANHOPE: Read the opinions:
LDA had appropriate policies and procedures in place …
Documentation relating to the sale was sufficient to enable bidders to conduct normal commercial due diligence.
That is the bottom line. The documentation was sufficient to conduct normal due diligence. You obviously do not understand what that means. But we do understand what Mr Seselja’s press releases mean. In a press release of August this year, he alleged that the LDA and ACTPLA treat different bidders in different ways. There it is in writing that the government did not get the return it deserved for this particular site. This motion should be passed. (Time expired.)
MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (11.58): Mr Speaker, the theatrics we have just witnessed do not sit very well with the facts of the circumstance. I want to take issue with the opening gambit from the Chief Minister in which he made great issue of the fact that this was the first time they had ever moved a censure motion of this nature. Mr Speaker, quite clearly the Chief Minister has misled the Assembly, because I draw to your attention—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .