Page 506 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 10 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
money on unnecessary projects like a prison.” That is the view of Mr Seselja on the prison—a waste of public money. He continued:
This project will cost … $128 million … There are a multitude of infrastructure priorities that could have been funded ahead of the prison …
Here we have the current shadow spokesperson for corrections applauding that this project should not have been given precedence. Mr Hanson applauds his leader’s assertion that there were infrastructure priorities that should have been pursued ahead of the prison. Mr Seselja concludes that release—and we still have a couple to go:
Canberrans are asking more and more: why did this issue become a priority …
Then, of course, we go to his last statement as shadow spokesperson, in September 2007. We will find more in speeches and comments, but the concluding remark by Mr Seselja in this little trip down memory lane, Mr Seselja’s final word, is: “This project was never wanted. However now that we are stuck with it,” we have to make the best of it.
MR SPEAKER: Chief Minister, your time has expired.
MR STANHOPE: That is the Liberal Party’s view on corrections—
MR SPEAKER: Sit down, Chief Minister.
MR STANHOPE: and on prisoners’ rights—
MR SPEAKER: Chief Minister—
MR STANHOPE: and never forget it.
MR SPEAKER: Order!
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (4.00): While we are referring to press releases, we know what the press release is for today: Mr Stanhope stood there for 10 minutes today and could not utter one word in defence of his Attorney-General. He is that embarrassed by the conduct of his Attorney-General that he did not even address the issue. We are still none the wiser as to how Mr Stanhope is going to vote on this motion. We know that he wants the prison, but we do not know whether he supports the Attorney-General’s behaviour and the Attorney-General’s comments which have led us to this motion today. This is a major disowning of his Attorney-General.
The former Attorney-General, who would know well and good himself the inappropriateness of the behaviour of Simon Corbell, could not even bring himself to say one word in his defence. Did he mention Mr Corbell in his speech? Did he mention what he said? Did he back up the Attorney-General’s furious claim made in Mr Corbell’s four-minute speech? Mr Corbell had four minutes where he outlined his case. Of course, his case essentially was, “Well they hadn’t been charged yet.” That was his defence. Of course, that is not what he said on the radio, because part of his
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .