Page 4011 - Week 09 - Thursday, 26 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
and get a correction, I put it again to the Greens: why don’t they care when ministers mislead? Why is it only the Liberal Party that cares? Why don’t they write to ministers and get them to correct the record? Why don’t they bring a censure motion when they are misled? Do the Greens not care about telling the truth in this place?
It appears that we go through this process where the Greens eventually acknowledge that we are right, as they have today—acknowledge that the minister has misled, acknowledge that the minister has had lots of opportunity—and then come up with an excuse as to why they cannot support it. Why aren’t you looking for some integrity in this place? Why aren’t you looking for some honesty? Why aren’t you coming to us and saying, “Ms Burch has misled; we are going to write to her and ask her to fix it”? Instead, you try and manufacture a reason not to support it.
The facts speak for themselves. The facts are that the minister misled—not just once, but on a number of occasions—and she perpetuated that in the way that she responded. She was then given the opportunity outside the chamber. She was then asked to correct, two days ago, in the chamber. And then there were further discussions asking her to come and correct. If that is not an exhaustive process to give a minister the opportunity to withdraw, then I have not seen one. The Greens’ defence is that there was not a proper process. You could not go through a more exhaustive process. What do you need—a month’s notice? There have been days and days and days—not five minutes, not an hour, not a day, but days and days of notice. She should have come and corrected the record.
We believe that the high standards should be kept. If ministers get it wrong and they correct it, we move on. If they refuse to correct, we need to hold them to account. That is what this motion is about, and that is why it should be supported.
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella) (10.42): I will not be very long. I will not take my full quota of 10 minutes. I need to put a couple of things on the table, though. Mr Seselja talks about fact. It is a fact this is just a filibustering waste of time. This is all about not getting to the Liquor Bill because they do not particularly want to. So let us call a spade a spade. Guys over there, you can put make-up on a pig but it is still a pig. That is what you are trying to do. You are trying to waste time so that we do not get to an item on the notice paper. So let us all accept that and then move on.
The second fact is that those opposite put a proposition to Ms Burch that they have a particular perspective on something she had said. Was she expected to believe them? Come on, get real! Would I believe it? No, I would not. Would I go and check it? Yes, I would. Perhaps her notion of what she said was correct.
We are talking about a very short space of time. What happens? Did Ms Burch get an opportunity to stand up here at start of business and say something? No. Speedy Gonzales over here goes, boing, gets straight up, like he was one of those little Acme toys you get on a cartoon program. But no! Does he give her time to correct the record?
Mrs Dunne: She was not here.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video