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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 12 Hansard (18 November) . . Page.. 4184 ..

MRS DUNNE (continuing):

As precedent shows, there has been one other case of contempt brought before this place where a contempt was found, and that person lost his job. He resigned. He did the right thing and walked out of this building, never to return. There is one rule for us and there is a different rule for Simon Corbell.

MR HARGREAVES (12.01): In theatrical terms, that was a big act to follow. I was thinking about standing up here and proving that I was a man, but I was afraid of what she would want me to do, and I am not going to do it.

MR SPEAKER: You are going to come to the point, aren't you?

MR HARGREAVES: I want to talk about my perspective as a member of the original Estimates Committee. If I remember correctly, the facts were that Mr Corbell was asked for the details of a waiting list, and he said he did not have it. However, everybody became apoplectic when it appeared in the paper the next day, in the blink of an eye.

On the basis of the facts themselves, this is a pretty minor thing. Over the whole of the estimates process, the focus has been on this one issue. Was there reasonable examination of the government's position of the day? No. As soon as that little glitch happened, everybody became fixed on that. That is appalling.

When I was in opposition, Mr Speaker, and I was a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety, I can recall the erstwhile leader of the opposition doing just that. We, as a committee, asked for information on how the prison project was going. One part of it was the cost-benefit analysis. Was it provided to the committee when asked for? No. We picked it up in the paper.

Mrs Dunne: Did it exist?

MR HARGREAVES: I do not know if it existed or not, but somehow it got into the paper. I wonder who put it in the paper, because it certainly was not me. Did we go apoplectic and say there was a contempt of the committee process? No. When I asked Mr Humphries whether he had the information about the cost-benefit analysis, he said, "No."It was the same story. You are right, there is one rule for you and one rule for us, and we are always on the short end of the stick. You can just settle down. This is a storm in a teacup.

What this minister has done, which is somewhat unique, is come into this place to apologise. You people seem to be allergic to the word "apology". You take your lead from your nearest and dearest on the hill. I do not recall any of your ministers coming into this place and saying, "I looked that up and I realise that I have done something wrong, and I am sorry for that."I do not remember you doing it once. If you can dig back into the deep, dark pages of Hansard and reveal one of your Liberal colleagues coming into this chamber and apologising for something he or she had done, then I will admit that I am wrong on that.

Mrs Cross: Kate did it.

MR HARGREAVES: Not in my time.

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