Page 42 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 14 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Barr is now saying: “We’re looking at other ways of doing it. We went out and tested the market.” Who in their right mind, when they want to build something, goes out to test the market and says, “Come and give me a quote for my house, my garage, my deck, my house of hubris, and I want to spend X number of dollars on it”? Who in their right mind tests the market by telling them how much you have got in the bank to spend on it?
That is the problem here today. The government made it up. They made it up out of whole cloth because Jon Stanhope wanted to build another palace to his memory. Katy Gallagher played along and then, when there was a change of the guard, they did not drop it. They did not say, “Gee, we’ve got ourselves into strife here and now Jon’s moved on, we’ll drop this.” Of course they could not drop that because we know that every time they do something that he does not like he gets on talkback radio and disses them, and they cannot stand that either. So they persisted with the wilful misleading of the Assembly, of the estimates committee and of the people of the ACT.
This is not a silly motion, Ms Le Couteur. This is about the standards that we require of debate in this place. It is about standards that we require in giving evidence to estimates committees. Those figures were repeated again and again—that we were going to save $32 million year on year in 2011 dollars terms and those savings were savings that were worth making. It is clear that those savings were ephemeral. They did not exist. They were not worth making. In making that statement over and over again, Katy Gallagher and Andrew Barr misled the Assembly, misled the estimates committee and misled the ACT community. They need to be censured to maintain the standards of this place. That is why we take it seriously. It is not silly. They told lies to the community. They did not resile from them over and over again.
MR SPEAKER: Order! Stop the clocks, thank you. Mrs Dunne, I tried to ascertain—I heard your earlier remarks but I think it is the form of the house that “lies” in most contexts is generally considered to be unparliamentary. I would ask you to withdraw, please.
MRS DUNNE: I really do need you to consider this. This is a substantive motion about misleading, and misleading is using facts in a way to deceive.
MR SPEAKER: I hear where you are coming from, Mrs Dunne. I do not dispute anything you just said. It is just that it very much seems to be the form of the house in my time here that “lies” in almost any context is considered unparliamentary. That is all I am trying to hold a consistent standard to.
MRS DUNNE: And in making these statements, Mr Speaker, I will conclude, Mr Barr and—
MR SPEAKER: I will take that as a withdrawal, thank you.
MRS DUNNE: Sorry, you wanted me to withdraw? Okay, I withdraw.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video