Page 2615 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 2 July 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I was not able to respond anymore across the chamber, it was difficult to restrain myself. Ms Gallagher apparently was not listening when Mr Smyth was quoting her and she apparently was not listening to anything that he said or anything that was in fact said during the debate on the no-confidence motion. But given that she was not, I might remind her of what Mr Smyth said and what we have said and what we have not said, just for the record, so that we can be clear on what she said and what standard we are holding her and the government to.
The quote that Mr Smyth referred to, which Ms Gallagher has now discussed, was in the Canberra Times. She said:
The Opposition will not be able to prove, in any way, in any document, that there was any improper involvement, or ultimately that the Government took decisions around this project specifically about where it was, because that’s just not the case.
In the second part of that statement, Ms Gallagher is saying that, ultimately, it is incorrect to suggest, and we will not be able to prove, that the government took decisions around this project specifically about where it was because that is just not the case. We could go into the mountain of documents that disprove that and we have tabled all of those in this place. Ms Gallagher is fully aware that only one site was ever offered and that in fact we say—
Ms Gallagher: That is not true.
MR SESELJA: It is true. The documentary evidence says only one site was ever offered and the Chief Minister said on the record only one site was ever formally offered; yet you say, “We had no involvement; we did not take decisions around this project specifically about where it was.” You did take decisions. You took decisions about where it was.
First, you narrowed the field and then you made an offer of a specific site. What part of that is not taking a decision in relation to where this project is? What part of that is incorrect? Ms Gallagher is walking out the door because her argument is so weak. She obviously either did not hear or chose to misunderstand what Mr Smyth said. What she said and what the documents show is there in black and white. It is interesting that she does not want to stay and listen. She gave this 15-minute tirade where she challenged me to produce things, and as soon as I produce what she said and what is in the documents she walks out of the room. It is interesting. I repeat it. She says:
The Opposition will not be able to prove … that the government took decisions around this project specifically about where it was, because that’s just not the case.
They made a number of decisions, including narrowing the number of sites and eventually offering one particular site. That is fact. That is a fact that Ms Gallagher cannot deny.
As to the second part of Ms Gallagher’s tirade, she claims that Mr Smyth and others have been making all sorts of allegations about public servants. That is simply not the case. I will make it really simple for Ms Gallagher in terms of what we have said. In
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .