Page 3221 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 13 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
have, to actually give this bill the scrutiny that it deserves is very, very difficult. We are having trouble finding times and dates for a hearing as it is. There is no doubt that we are going to have to juggle our diary. I have actually suggested to Mr Stanhope that the committee may require extra resources in the way of secretarial services to assist us to complete this inquiry—brief though it is, it still needs to be thorough—to the degree that is appropriate. It is an appropriation bill; it is appropriate to look at it properly. It is appropriate that the public accounts committee look at it, but it is also appropriate that the committee is resourced adequately.
So, to that extent, I am endorsing the intent of Mr Mulcahy’s motion. I do not think I have a copy of the motion, Mr Mulcahy, and I would appreciate that being circulated before we vote on it.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Mulcahy, you would be closing the debate?
MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (11.03): No, Mr Speaker, I am seeking to speak under standing order 47, briefly.
MR SPEAKER: Yes.
MR MULCAHY: Mr Speaker, I found those remarks quite extraordinary in that I have been quite significantly misrepresented by Dr Foskey. I have been misquoted in a sense, or misunderstood. I spoke with Dr Foskey before this debate occurred. She indicated that Mr Stanhope had indicated also to her that he was going to support a referral to the public accounts committee. I indicated to her the date and what I intended to do, and I am just appalled—and I am going to raise another issue later today—at these constant misrepresentations to the Assembly.
MR SPEAKER: Order! You have got to stick to the misquotation or the misunderstanding of a material part of your speech. I do not want this to degenerate into another debating point.
MR MULCAHY: I understand. The misunderstanding, Mr Speaker, is that, indeed, I did speak to Dr Foskey this morning before this came up. I explained to her the date and my intended course of action—
MR SPEAKER: I have to say, I think that is a debating point, and you will have the opportunity to close the debate in due course.
MR MULCAHY: All right.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Minister for the Environment, Water and Climate Change, Minister for the Arts) (11.05): Mr Speaker, as both Mr Mulcahy and Dr Foskey have indicated, it was the government’s intention to move this very same motion today, but, in discussion with Mr Mulcahy prior to the debate, he indicated that the Liberal Party had also prepared to move the motion and he, indeed, had a prepared speech. On that basis, we agreed that it would be appropriate for the opposition to move the motion. It is a matter of no great moment. We were seeking exactly the same outcome for the same reasons.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .