Page 3711 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 26 August 2009

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

---

We saw it again this morning from Mr Smyth when he purported to quote from an estimates committee hearing in relation to the strategic review. He claimed that I had said something unequivocally, absolutely, categorically. When you turn the page and you actually read the full transcript, what does it say? I was asked:

Yes, that is okay about open space, but Ernst & Young were not charged with finding any savings at all?

I responded:

I do not believe that was their remit, Mr Smyth.

I said that I did not believe that. Mr Smyth asked the question again and I responded:

I have taken that question on notice.

He sits here this morning and deliberately and blatantly lied about what I said at estimates.

Mr Seselja: On a point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker: I know he is struggling, but can you ask him to withdraw the word “lie”?

MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ms Le Couteur): Yes, I think we have decided “lie” is not—

MR STANHOPE: This is a substantive motion—

MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: No, no—

Mr Seselja: Mrs Dunne had to withdraw this morning.

MR STANHOPE: Members of the opposition have been repeatedly claiming and insisting that Mr Barr was actually telling lies. You cannot have it both ways.

MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Stanhope!

MR STANHOPE: They cannot say it about Mr Barr and not cop it themselves.

MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Stanhope!

MR STANHOPE: It is a substantive motion; they cannot do it.

Mr Seselja: Yes, we can.

MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Stanhope, could you please withdraw the word “lie”?

MR STANHOPE: Do I actually have to move a censure against Mr Smyth if I am to repeat it?

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .