Page 5432 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Corbell? Despite getting that information, he did nothing about it. Despite getting that information, he went on and he misled again. Despite saying that he would take it on notice and look into it, wouldn’t you actually think that maybe there is some truth in this? Wouldn’t he say, “I need to get to the bottom of this; give me answers; I want to see those dates”? That is the way it could have been resolved. Mr Linke says that they did not get $570,000. The department, we are told, claims that they did. Wouldn’t you ask, “Well, department, could you please show me when you paid that $570,000?”
That would have been what a good, decent, hardworking minister would have done, but he did not. I guess that is why his colleagues do not want to defend him. That is why Mr Barr does not want to defend him. It is because it is indefensible. He should be censured and we should not believe him. This is the point of Mr Hanson’s amendment. We should not believe him because of his past form.
This minister deserves to be censured. What he has done is indefensible. By not censuring him, this Assembly will be saying to ministers that unless there is a smoking gun that shows where you were advised of the incorrect information, you can get away with saying whatever you like. As long as there is some plausible deniability, whether you look into it or not, you will get away with saying anything in this place. That is not good enough and that is why he deserves to be censured.
Mr Doszpot interjecting—
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Doszpot. That is the last time. Next time I hear your voice it is a holiday.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (4.43): I wanted to go to one of the points that Mr Smyth made in his speech about how members conduct themselves and about how community groups are referred to. I think it is interesting that we are talking about irony today. One of the things that Mr Seselja has continually stated in a number of public forums is that the Greens want to ban the sale of puppies. I do not believe that is ever anything we have said. This is in relation to Ms Le Couteur’s legislation on the sale of animals in pet stores.
It is ironic because the thing that the legislation referred to proposes that animals would be sold through the RSPCA. I do believe that the RSPCA actually supported the legislation; so it is somehow ironic that we have had Mr Seselja out there saying that the Greens want to ban the sale of puppies. I wonder whether that slur also relates to the RSPCA in that the RSPCA are also saying, because of their support for Ms Le Couteur’s legislation, that they want to ban the sale of puppies.
Mr Seselja interjecting—
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Seselja, thanks.
MS BRESNAN: It is somewhat ironic that we are talking about the RSPCA, we are talking about community organisations, we are talking about how members conduct themselves when Mr Seselja is quite happy to get up in forums mislead the public
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video