Page 2695 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I think we should reflect a bit on history here. Those opposite would say, “We do not need the government office building at all; we have got all these wonderful, admittedly sad, buildings around town we are renting.” It is really about protecting, I believe, some of their mates in the property market.
It is not the first time they have objected to the building of a building. I seem to recall, and my colleagues might refresh my memory, that it was in the 2004 election campaign when they were not going to build a prison. This was going to be a $100 million prison. They said, “No, no.” They were going to spend the money on recurrent services in the hospital. They were going to take $100 million out of capital and plough it into the recurrent costs of the hospital.
Mr Smyth: That is not true.
MR HARGREAVES: Mr Smyth interjects across the chamber that that is not true. He says that that is not true.
Mr Hanson: Madam Deputy Speaker—
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could you resume your seat, Mr Hargreaves. Could you stop the clock, please.
Mr Hanson: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, I am not sure that a dissertation about what may or may not have been Liberal Party policies from a previous election is relevant to the line item in this budget debate that we are having here today.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Corbell on the point of order.
Mr Seselja interjecting—
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Seselja, could you please be quiet. Mr Corbell has the floor on a point of order.
Mr Corbell: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think we need to be clear about the relevant standing order in relation to the debate on appropriation bills. If the Liberal Party is going to take points of order in relation to relevance, perhaps Mr Seselja should reflect on the fact that he did not know that the appropriation for the ACT executive had anything to do with a lease variation charge but it quickly became part of the debate as far as Mr Seselja was concerned. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
MR HARGREAVES: And further on the point of order—
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, Mr Hargreaves.
Members interjecting—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video