Page 672 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 11 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
As a result of the Chief Minister’s actions, we now have the high irony of the Attorney-General coming in here saying that we must be mindful of our relationship with the commonwealth. Well, they should have thought about that back when the Chief Minister betrayed the trust that he did. The Canberra Liberals will maintain the trust with the community by proceeding with our legislative reform. As a result of that, we will not be supporting this amendment.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Minister for Transport, Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Minister for the Arts and Heritage) (4.57): I must respond to this notion of me betraying trust and doing outrageous things. I am stunned.
Mrs Dunne: Are you debating the amendment?
MR STANHOPE: Well, I am responding to the debating points made in terms of the government’s position and the government’s position actually being pilloried on the basis of the decision I took some years ago to make publicly available a template draft of anti-terrorism legislation to which we were a party and for which the commonwealth was seeking our approval.
Mrs Dunne: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, the issue at debate is whether or not we should accept the Attorney-General’s amendment. The comments I made obviously got under the Chief Minister’s skin, but he cannot actually go back and address the issues about what he did, unless he is prepared to do it in the context of the amendment that we are debating. At the moment he is not being relevant; he is just going on about his track record.
MR STANHOPE: On the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am actually responding to points made in debate by Mrs Dunne. If Mrs Dunne’s justification for the Liberal Party’s position in relation to an amendment is my behaviour in relation to a piece of terrorism legislation which I publicly released, she cannot stand up now and say that I cannot refer to the issue which has driven her position of principle in relation to this particular amendment. You cannot say, “I am going to argue my case on the basis of this point, but you can’t argue your case on the basis of exactly the same point.” The point of order is absolutely spurious, as are most of Mrs Dunne’s points of order.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mrs Dunne, what we are discussing is the documents affecting relationships with the commonwealth and states. Mr Stanhope can proceed; there is no point of order.
MR STANHOPE: Mrs Dunne displays the most appalling double-standard hypocrisy in suggesting that she can argue a point around relationships on this particular issue but I cannot.
It is quite interesting to see what has happened as the onion layers peel off, particularly with regard to Mr Hanson and his presentation on his first day here as the new progressive. The onion layers are unravelling. We get to the issue of terrorism
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .