Page 1685 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
process in the scrutiny of urban services and later the transport system. Again, it was hardly offensive, and even a little funny. But, as will be seen, this long-winded, mild stirring went on and on. It was designed to deflect attention from matters needing to be scrutinised and formed part of the niggling process.
Mr Hargreaves’s behaviour then graduated to truly contemptuous and obfuscating behaviour, as we will now see. Let us talk about the accusation of lying from Mr Hargreaves regarding constituent issues. I refer specifically to the range of questions on Point Hut Road signage and incidents which have occurred this year. Mr Hargreaves said:
And I need to respond very, very, very briefly. Firstly, I have sprung Mr Pratt on this occasion before ...
Forgive me if this sounds like it is all about me, Mr Speaker; it is not. It is all about Mr Hargreaves, and it is about other people who have been hurt by Mr Hargreaves. He continued:
… and it comes down to this. I am not accusing Mr Pratt of lying. I am just suggesting that I do not believe a thing from Mr Pratt until I have been able to verify it independently.
Of course, we now know that the issue raised by me about the dangerous corner signage on Point Hut Road—a very dangerous case pointed out by the community, who had a very good idea of what had happened along the Point Hut Road—proved to be true. We know, for example, as a consequence of the response to my question on notice, that the department of municipal services had re-erected a dangerous corner sign on the Monday following a very serious accident on Point Hut Road. That was an issue raised by the Tharwa community. They did not raise the issue lightly. It is a very important issue regarding competence and safety. As a consequence, it was our duty to pursue that line of questioning on behalf of the community. But it was treated lightly and dismissed by Mr Hargreaves, with an implication that perhaps Mr Pratt or members of the Tharwa community were lying. So now we know what the truth is.
I will now talk about the impugning of character. In response to a question going to the heart of Mr Hargreaves’s deliberate action in not answering the question about road signage, Mrs Burke, in questioning Mr Hargreaves, said:
So you believe Dr Foskey but not Mr Pratt. I see ... different rules apply ...
In response, Mr Hargreaves said:
Yes—and, Mr Chairman, there is a really good reason for that, and that is because Dr Foskey conducts herself with integrity.
By extrapolation, the message is that Mr Hargreaves believes Mr Pratt to be lacking in integrity. Again, I do not take that too personally, but it is an observation about serious misconduct.
What about his disrespectful attitudes towards a constituent? In response to a question asked by Mrs Burke about the closure of Griffith library, the minister disrespectfully
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .