Page 1453 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 6 June 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The opposition today calls upon the government to move quickly to refurbish the Albert Hall by the expenditure of what would appear to be a minimum of $1.8 million to return it to a reasonable standard before the government embarks on any other commercial arrangement to incorporate management procedures, and we call upon the government to ensure that community use is guaranteed for the Albert Hall. Mr Speaker, I commend the motion.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo): I seek leave to respond to some comments made by Mr Pratt. I do not know the wording to use and I seek the Clerk’s advice on that.
MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you feel that you have been misquoted or misunderstood, you can seek under standing order 47 to explain that.
DR FOSKEY: I seek leave to make an explanation under standing order 47.
MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: You may proceed, Dr Foskey.
DR FOSKEY: I think it is really important to clarify the record here. I knew that the Friends of Albert Hall were talking with the Liberal Party in an effort to bring this motion on today, which I also wanted to happen because I believed, along with the Liberal Party, that August would be too late to debate it. There was some talk in the wind of a swap of space in the roster because, as people would be well aware, as the single crossbencher I was very unlikely to get my business up today, and certainly did not get it up last week.
My concerns, as expressed at the beginning of my speech, were that the first that I knew that something like that had actually happened, and I must say that I was pleased that I did not have to swap my business and that the Liberals had decided to prioritise it, was when I saw the notice paper yesterday. I had assumed that there would be a conversation between the Liberals and me, given that we both had—
Mr Mulcahy: I take a point of order, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker. Where is the misrepresentation? We are not hearing any evidence of a misrepresentation. It is just an historical account. Could we get to the point of the misrepresentation?
DR FOSKEY: Thanks so much for your interest, Mr Mulcahy. What I heard was that I had no interest in this issue because I had taken it off the notice paper. Given that it was to be discussed as the first item of business for private members’ business today, it did seem rather redundant to have a very similar motion, which was my motion that had been placed there last week, still on the business paper and I elected to have it taken off. I believe the SIEV X issue is an important one, but it was not a matter of prioritising. I believe that I have been misrepresented by Mr Pratt in his comments to that effect. Hopefully I have cleared the record.
Question put:
That Mr Hargreaves’s amendment be agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .