Mr BURKE - 2005-02-17
Yesterday, I issued you two challenges. One was, in regard to your deal to give away our parks, and the speed with which you are rushing the waterfront development, I challenged you to publicly debate these issues at any place, any time, anywhere, in any medium of your choosing. Will you accept my challenge?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I am happy to debate the Opposition Leader any time, any place, anywhere, in any form. It is important, though, before you have those debates, to look at the authority that we vested in the Opposition Leader. There are responsibilities which go with that job. When you have a responsibility to respond to legislation in this House, you also have a responsibility to get across the details of what we are talking about. It is impossible to take a challenge like that as seriously as I should when you know that the Opposition Leader does not have the basic facts to hand to properly argue his point of view.
We have an Opposition Leader who told me, on the waterfront, to ‘get ahead and just do it’. In May 2003, he criticised us for having public consultations on the waterfront. He said, ‘The CLP plan had many months of public consultation about the convention centre. We are wasting taxpayers’ dollars by doing it. Just go ahead and do it’. Now we have a very different position from an Opposition Leader who is not across the issues.
We also had him say that we are in an unseemly hurry, rushing through the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Bill. How is 18 months unseemly hurry? The requirements of this parliament are, you put a bill into the parliament at one session and debate it in the next. That is about a six week period. With this bill, we have had 18 months.
As I said, I am happy to take the Opposition Leader on anywhere, but how can you take that kind of challenge seriously with a man who is seriously ill-informed, and simply playing politics about issues he should be taking very seriously.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I am happy to debate the Opposition Leader any time, any place, anywhere, in any form. It is important, though, before you have those debates, to look at the authority that we vested in the Opposition Leader. There are responsibilities which go with that job. When you have a responsibility to respond to legislation in this House, you also have a responsibility to get across the details of what we are talking about. It is impossible to take a challenge like that as seriously as I should when you know that the Opposition Leader does not have the basic facts to hand to properly argue his point of view.
We have an Opposition Leader who told me, on the waterfront, to ‘get ahead and just do it’. In May 2003, he criticised us for having public consultations on the waterfront. He said, ‘The CLP plan had many months of public consultation about the convention centre. We are wasting taxpayers’ dollars by doing it. Just go ahead and do it’. Now we have a very different position from an Opposition Leader who is not across the issues.
We also had him say that we are in an unseemly hurry, rushing through the Parks and Reserves (Framework for the Future) Bill. How is 18 months unseemly hurry? The requirements of this parliament are, you put a bill into the parliament at one session and debate it in the next. That is about a six week period. With this bill, we have had 18 months.
As I said, I am happy to take the Opposition Leader on anywhere, but how can you take that kind of challenge seriously with a man who is seriously ill-informed, and simply playing politics about issues he should be taking very seriously.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016