Page 1686 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
referred to a constituent—a constituent who was well known to Mrs Burke, to me and, indeed, to the minister, as a person who had well and honourably represented her community over the Griffith library closure. This woman has fought hard for her community and is well respected. Mr Hargreaves said:
I haven’t been listening for example to the lady who was cranking up your good selves on such things when she herself, purporting to be a library member, had not been a library member for two years prior to the event.
He impugned the woman’s character by indicating that she was a false representative on a serious community matter. Everybody else, including the media, knows that this woman was a very genuine activist on behalf of the Griffith library community.
Where do we go from there? What about the obstruction of an MLA and abuse of staff? In refusing to answer my question about why the government was not moving to resolve matters to allow the take-up of approximately $71 million of commonwealth funding identified in the budget for road enhancements, Mr Hargreaves responded:
… once again we hear from Mr Pratt the loaded question: why is your government not doing so and so? … he is talking rubbish ... Furthermore, it just goes to the laziness of Mr Pratt and/or his advisers.
I do not want to be particularly precious about me or my advisers, but my staff do the best that they possibly can. Mr Hargreaves has no idea about how my staff perform. They do a damn good job. There is no need for MLAs to abuse members’ staff. We do not criticise ministers’ staff; they should be exempt from this sort of behaviour. But there we have it, by way of an example. The ministerial code of conduct states:
Ministers will treat other members of the Legislative Assembly, members of the public or other officials honestly and fairly, with proper regard for their personal dignity, rights, entitlements, duties and obligations, and should at all times act responsibly in their performance of their public duties.
I put it to the Assembly that this minister has broken all of those codes. He has broken the standing orders and he has breached the ministerial code; therefore this matter must be referred to a privileges committee.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (10.52): The establishment of a privileges committee is a serious step for the Assembly to take, and it needs to be done in the context of what could be potentially serious infringements of a member’s ability to undertake his or her role as an elected representative. The arguments we have just heard from Mr Pratt, in the government’s view, do not substantiate the establishment of a privileges committee.
First of all, we heard a whole series of allegations made by Mr Pratt, who seems to have been miffed by the behaviour of the minister. We are all miffed from time to time in this place by the behaviour of those who oppose us in this chamber or, indeed, in other ways, but that is not a reason to establish a privileges committee. Just because you are a little bit upset that another member has impugned your motives in some way is not an argument for saying, “Well, the whole matter needs to be sent to a privileges committee.”
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .