Apparently NSW LC Government Whip Dr. Peter Phelps likes to tweet from the floor of the Legislative Council and keeps his Blackberry fairly smoking.
Here he is on 2nd April 2012:
Just slammed Greens in NSW for crying crocodile tears for TWU, when their policy calls for major attacks on road transport industry #nswpol
Another Labor MP quotes verbatim Wikipedia for their contribution to LC debate, this time on 99 year leases #ffs #nswpol #thatsnotresearch
Intrigued, I opened Hansard up and took a good look at the CENTENNIAL PARK AND MOORE PARK TRUST AMENDMENT BILL 2012 second reading debate which began about 9.02pm. After sorting his interjection chaff from the record and discovering the rather meagre Phelps contribution to the business of the day, I began to think there was something rather odd about his "Wikipedia" tweet.
Yep, you guessed it – no "verbatim" quoting of Teh Wiki by a Labor MP.
So, not only is Phelps an arrogant self-proclaimed troll on Twitter – he tells whoppers as well.
9 comments:
Oh, dear. You need to do better fact-checking, NCV.
The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [9.54 p.m.]: I support Opposition amendment No. 1. The reality is that a 99-year lease is effectively selling off parts of the park. The origin of 99-year leases rests in common law and historically it was the longest possible term of a lease of real property.
WIKIPEDIA: A 99-year lease was, under historic common law, the longest possible term of a lease of real property.
VOLTZ: That is no longer the law in most Commonwealth jurisdictions, yet 99-year leases continue to be common as a matter of business practice and conventional wisdom.
WIKIPEDIA: It is no longer the law in most common law jurisdictions today, yet 99-year leases continue to be common as a matter of business practice and conventional wisdom.
VOLTZ: Under the traditional American common law doctrine the 99-year term was not literal but merely an arbitrary time span beyond the life expectancy of any possible lessor or lessee.
WIKIPEDIA: Under the traditional American common law doctrine, the 99-year term was not literal, but merely an arbitrary time span beyond the life expectancy of any possible lessee or lessor.
VOLTZ: A 99-year lease is past the life expectancy of anyone, so it is really a sale of the land.
The land in Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory is all held by tenure under 99-year lease provisions.
WIKIPEDIA: All land in Canberra and The Australian Capital Territory in Australia is held by tenure is held under 99 year lease provisions.
VOLTZ: The land of the city of Salamanca in New York is held under a 99-year lease…
WIKIPEDIA: The land under the city of Salamanca, New York has been held under 99-year leases.
VOLTZ: … as is the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.
WIKIPEDIA: The Guantanamo Bay Naval Base started as a 99-year lease in 1903 from the first president of Cuba to the United States
VOLTZ: The list of land held under 99-year leases goes on and on. As I said, 99-year leases are used because that is an arbitrary time span beyond the life expectancy of any possible lessor or lessee.
WIKIPEDIA: Under the traditional American common law doctrine, the 99-year term was not literal, but merely an arbitrary time span beyond the life expectancy of any possible lessee or lessor.
I wonder how long it will be before this post 'disappears' in an Orwellian puff of embarrassment?
The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [9.54 p.m.]: I support Opposition amendment No. 1. The reality is that a 99-year lease is effectively selling off parts of the park. The origin of 99-year leases rests in common law and historically it was the longest possible term of a lease of real property.
WIKIPEDIA: A 99-year lease was, under historic common law, the longest possible term of a lease of real property.
VOLTZ: That is no longer the law in most Commonwealth jurisdictions, yet 99-year leases continue to be common as a matter of business practice and conventional wisdom.
WIKIPEDIA: It is no longer the law in most common law jurisdictions today, yet 99-year leases continue to be common as a matter of business practice and conventional wisdom.
VOLTZ: Under the traditional American common law doctrine the 99-year term was not literal but merely an arbitrary time span beyond the life expectancy of any possible lessor or lessee.
WIKIPEDIA: Under the traditional American common law doctrine, the 99-year term was not literal, but merely an arbitrary time span beyond the life expectancy of any possible lessee or lessor.
VOLTZ: A 99-year lease is past the life expectancy of anyone, so it is really a sale of the land.
The land in Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory is all held by tenure under 99-year lease provisions.
WIKIPEDIA: All land in Canberra and The Australian Capital Territory in Australia is held by tenure is held under 99 year lease provisions.
VOLTZ: The land of the city of Salamanca in New York is held under a 99-year lease…
WIKIPEDIA: The land under the city of Salamanca, New York has been held under 99-year leases.
VOLTZ: … as is the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.
WIKIPEDIA: The Guantanamo Bay Naval Base started as a 99-year lease in 1903 from the first president of Cuba to the United States
VOLTZ: The list of land held under 99-year leases goes on and on. As I said, 99-year leases are used because that is an arbitrary time span beyond the life expectancy of any possible lessor or lessee.
WIKIPEDIA: Under the traditional American common law doctrine, the 99-year term was not literal, but merely an arbitrary time span beyond the life expectancy of any possible lessee or lessor.
I just had a look at both the speech at http://parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20120402043?open&refNavID=HA8_1 and the Wikipedia entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99-year_lease and it very clearly has been cut and pasted into the opening two paragraphs of Lynda Voltz' speech.
Not sure how you can claim Dr Phelps is telling 'whoppers' when the words in the speech and on Wikipedia are identical.
What Wikipedia page were you looking at?
Peter Phelps, Anonymous, David Miles,
The problem was the tweet did not say 'cut and paste' or just 'quotes', it said "quotes verbatim" - and Dr. Phelps well knows that means extensively quoting word for word from the text with no deviation.
The Labor MP came close but there's no cigar for Phelps, because there are differences between the Wikipedia text and the Hansard transcript.
Phelps wonders "how long it will be before this post
'disappears' in an Orwellian puff of embarrassment".
The answer is never. No matter how much he huffs and puffs the post stays on the record :-)
Don't know why Phelps was even commenting on 'quotes' when rules of Upper House say 'A member may read reasonable lengths of extracts from books, newspapers,
publications or documents' and MLCs are allowed to read from a Blackberry.
Yes it is perfectly legitamate to quote from anything in the upperhouse however the quote must be attributed. Otherwise it's just plagerism. Quoting 101.
Then at one time or another the entire Upper House would've been plagarists - including Phelps.
Apparently he has a long history
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1172416.htm
It may only be a “pub view”, but we who have to live in the real world (unlike academics) consider that if you’re not fit to walk the streets, then you’re not fit to vote for people who make the laws of our nation for the next three years.
Dr Peter Phelps
Queanbeyan, NSW.
- The Canberra Times, 17 July 2004
DM: But did Dr Phelps really pick up that line in a Queanbeyan pub? Isn’t it more likely he heard Special Minister of State Eric Abetz on AM.....
DM: So how come the personal view and the authorised statement are essentially identical?
Because it’s a snappy line… I’m acknowledging that [the minister] said it best.
- Dr Phelps Statement to Media Watch, 4 August 2004
I liked the fact that once Phelpsie quoted Hayek in the Legislative Assembly but only attributed the quote to "one writer".
Ashamed of where he was drawing his material?
Post a Comment