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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Thursday, 26 August 2004) . . Page.. 4456 ..

think, “Gee, why did I agree to do that?”—especially if you have been out all day doorknocking and things like that. But almost invariably, you come back with your spirits lifted because you have gone somewhere in the community and met somebody who is making a difference. And we are about making a difference. No-one is conscripted into this job, but I hope those who get it appreciate the privilege.

Mr Speaker, at the risk of being a bit discordant, there are a couple of things that I think we should be careful about that have been part of what could be considered a game around here but I think are not part of the game. They are attacks on people’s families and their personal and business activities. They are not part of the game. We are elected; our families are not. They are not part of the slanging system here.

I also consider not part of the game systematic, sustained and premeditated attacks on members for their previous activities, in particular, accusing one of espionage, of betraying his previous employers and betraying his mates. Sometimes that is said jocularly, but it is not a light matter and it is not a legitimate part of political debate. That said, on the whole we across this place recognise that in this chamber, which is really not much bigger than your average lounge room—

Mr Hargreaves: I’d like to see your house! You’re getting paid too much!

MRS DUNNE: Okay, twice the size of your average lounge. It is a very personal place and everything you do is very up close and personal, which is something other people do not appreciate. I have friends visiting at the moment from the UK, who are very actively involved in political lobbying in the House of Commons and elsewhere, who sat here today and said “What you people do is amazing.” With the small number of us and the amount of stuff that we have to cover, we do amazing work. This sticks with me.

Somebody on the hill, who was a minister, whom I admire, met me one day at breakfast when I was quite new in this job. He asked me, “What are you going to do today, Vicki? Do you have much to do on a sitting day?” I said, “Well, I have got two committee reports to bring down, and I have got this to do and I am speaking on an MPI and I have two bills to address. By the time I get to the end of the day I have about seven speeches and a question to ask.”

He is a federal cabinet minister, and he went, “I do not do anything like that.” They do not do anything like that because of the sheer number of people. You get to spread the agony around, but we are up close and personal. If we make a mistake with standing orders, everybody notices. But it also brings a sort of camaraderie because when you do make a mistake there is always someone there to whisper what you should be doing. I thank people for that. I thank the staff.

While I do not want to enumerate, I do want to thank a list of people: my committee secretaries, Maureen Weekes, and Derek Abbott, Linda Atkinson and Robina Jaffray—because they taught me a great deal about how the parliamentary system works. I want to pay tribute to my colleagues on the committee: Katy Gallagher, who did not stay; Roslyn Dundas, whom I would not let go; Helen Cross; and John Hargreaves, who makes a very good travelling companion. If you have to travel on committee business, I recommend that you go with John Hargreaves because there will never be a dull moment.

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