Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (28 June) . . Page.. 2120 ..
MR
SPEAKER: Then, I am sorry, you will have to withdraw them.MR
HARGREAVES: I have and I am happy to have done that.MR
SPEAKER: I want you to withdraw them now.MR
HARGREAVES: I withdraw, Mr Speaker. I was referring to the reductions in funding apparently to be suffered by the Women's Legal Service, the Environmental Defender's Office and the Welfare Rights and Legal Service. I had not referred to any specific reason that may be the subject of the minister's displeasure and that may have given rise to this. However, at the time the minister jumped to his feet in mock outrage and made an outlandish accusation of his own. He is also reported on page 110 of the uncorrected proof copy of Hansard as saying that I had alleged, in effect, that he had perverted the duty he owes to members of the community. He also said that it was an allegation of corruption. (Extension of time granted.)Mr Speaker, on seeing how mortified this minister was of being accused, in effect, of perversion of duty and corruption, I immediately withdrew any suggestion or implication that there may be corruption. However, on reflecting on this issue, I now see that the minister was demanding I withdraw an implication which he drew from the comment. It was the minister who referred to the issue of abortion, not I. It was he who raised the accusation of corruption, not I. It is this perversion of the statements of members and the mock indignant defence of that perversion which is the hallmark of this minister, hence the term "to be Gary-ed".
Mr Speaker, I was somewhat angered because I had sought details of the government's decision in relation to the funding of the Women's Legal Service, only to be told that the chair had accepted the minister's verbal advice that he had acted on departmental advice. I sought details and none were forthcoming.
The minister has to understand that he is not the font of all wisdom and he is not the only person asked for information. Mr Speaker, I would ask you to perhaps use your good offices to inform the minister that I am under no obligation, as a member of a committee, to seek his advice on anything. If I want the information, I will do it through the chair, which I did. I did not ask the chair to seek information from you; I asked for a clarification of it within the committee structure. I would not dare to speak to you about the issue, minister, because, quite frankly, at the deliberations I did not trust you.
I considered the minister's advice to the chair to be inadequate justification for the apparent reductions and said so inside the committee deliberations or discussions. The sooner this minister realises that nobody has to run to him and ask him for everything, the sooner he will settle down and stop being so prickly and precious. I considered the minister's advice-or Mr Keady's; I can stand corrected by the chair, and I am happy for that to be done-to the chair to be inadequate justification. It is a bit amazing if you are now saying that the advice to the committee from the chief executive was that we should not query what the minister's response was because that advice is something that ought not have happened. It sounds a bit odd to me.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .