Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 8 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 2178 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

advance. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, when I became aware, through a conversation with Mr Davey, that this perception of bias did exist, I went to pains to inform him that, whilst I had a preference borne of personal experience and knowledge gained prior to the inquiry being constituted, I had an open mind on the issue.

At this point Mr Davey seemed to me and to my advisor, who was present and taking notes, to be satisfied with the position. He did, however, reassert his position at a subsequent public hearing. I am happy to table notes from this meeting, if the Assembly should desire, or show them to any member interested in them. Any examination of the transcripts of the public hearings will attest to no bias of mine through questioning.

I took trouble to ensure that no person giving evidence felt that the position advanced was not being treated seriously and fairly. Indeed, on the evidence given to the committee, I have moved from a position of being totally against the sale of shopgood fireworks to a more conciliatory position-one which will become more obvious with the committee delivering its report.

This is a very serious allegation. If such an allegation were soundly based, it would bring into question the integrity of the committee. That is not the case in this instance. It would be more of an issue if I had hidden my position and tried to influence the outcome. I have not done so. I have not tried to influence the decision in any way greater than my colleagues have through their examination of evidence received. I consider this charge to be baseless and levelled out of mischief, with full intent to disrupt the workings of the committee.

As an aside, Mr Davey, during his visit to my office, indicated that he was taking legal action against the Canberra Times and had considered taking legal action against me, but his advice was that there was no case. I took this as a threat.

Standing order 259 requires a committee to let the Assembly know if a member of the public feels that a member has acted inappropriately. I would contend that honesty in this issue-something I have demonstrated repeatedly-is not an inappropriate action. I would further contend that statements attributed to me but not in direct quotes do not constitute any action on my part, let alone inappropriate action.

Given the sensitive nature of this inquiry, it has been conducted with complete propriety. The press article-reference is provided here-was discussed in the committee. The substance of the article gave some members grief but did not result in any request by members that I step down from the inquiry. I took this to be an expression of confidence by members of the committee that I would take part in the inquiry in a fair and unbiased way, bringing to it my own experiences of explosives and the maltreatment of my own pet and my concern for the community-all of which I indicated to members of the committee immediately the inquiry was called.

We all take into inquiries some preconceptions. I have had my preconceptions regarding shopgood fireworks out there in public for the best part of four years now. My views were not news to anyone. Misrepresentation in such a fashion of those views, preferences and, indeed, fears should be dismissed out of hand.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .