Page 37 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 12 February 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
position. Those are the facts. It is on the record. It is there for you to see. There is a conflicting statement, admittedly; we accept that. We acknowledge a conflict with the minister’s position by a spokesperson.
You have two choices here: you can take the word of the minister for education, publicly expressed, on the public record, as expressing the government’s position, or you can take a position in conflict with that by a spokesperson. And you and the community can of course rightly point to the conflict and the ambiguity. But the minister for education at the time, on behalf of the government, put the government’s position as one which would not rule in or out the possibility or the prospect—
Opposition members interjecting—
MR SPEAKER: Order!
MR STANHOPE: You choose, of course, to ignore the position put by the relevant minister. You choose to ignore the position put by the minister and you claim that the ACT government’s position is encapsulated within a comment reported in the Canberra Times as that of a spokesperson.
Members interjecting—
MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Seselja, cease interjecting!
MR STANHOPE: So you have two choices, as does the Canberra community: the position articulated by the minister, the relevant, responsible minister, or the position articulated by an anonymous spokesperson. And you, of course, for political purposes, choose to ignore the explicit statement by the minister and you, of course, for political purposes, choose to believe or accept or promulgate that the alternative position is or was the government’s position. And of course we would expect you to do that; we would expect you to do that. But the people of Canberra are aware of the facts of the situation. It has been spoken of often over the last two years. You can continue to raise it if you wish, but the position of the government was explicit, as expressed by the minister Ms Gallagher, and the government of course regrets any confusion that may have occurred. But the position of the minister and of the government was quite clear.
MR SESELJA: Mr Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Minister, will you apologise to the people of Canberra for this betrayal of voter trust?
MR STANHOPE: A betrayal of trust—that the minister stated explicitly what the government’s position was! The minister stated explicitly the government’s position. An unnamed spokesperson put a contrary position in a single article in the Canberra Times—a fission of conflict.
I acknowledge that any conflict or difference in expression of government position is always to be regretted. But for the new opposition leader, in his first question as Leader of the Opposition, to stand and demand an apology for this absolutely outrageous occurrence—that an unnamed spokesperson did not reflect the position put by the minister of the day and is worthy of this condemnation; this need for an abject
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .