Page 1714 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Minister, why have you consistently failed to meet your responsibilities as a minister during hearings of the estimates committee of the Assembly as required by the ministerial code of conduct?
MR HARGREAVES: I think it is timely that a couple of numbers were put on the record. Mr Pratt asserts that I did not answer questions. In fact, the truth of the matter is that there were 44 questions or 44 subjects given to me, and I directly responded to about 36 of them. I took a number of them on notice. All of those questions on notice have been provided to the committee—all of them. It is also worth reporting to the Assembly that in the course of—what was it?—two hours worth of hearings, there were 160 interjections by either Mrs Burke or Mr Pratt.
Mr Stanhope: One hundred and sixty?
MR HARGREAVES: A hundred and sixty. Mr Speaker, it also is worth noting that Mrs Burke, in the course of the hearing, asked me whether I would confirm or deny that I or one of my officers had in fact breached the commonwealth Workplace Relations Act. There was no evidence. I asked her to provide such evidence or withdraw, and neither happened.
That is a breach of standing orders. That is a crystal-clear breach of standing orders. So we looked back at the other transgressions of these two members I have just spoken about—to find that they breached a number of other standing orders in the course of that particular afternoon.
We talk about behaviour, Mr Speaker. I refer members to the transcript where I said:
I will not put up with badgering of my officers.
That did not come out of the blue. That was in response to badgering. What was the response from the Leader of the Opposition? He referred me to the Senate to get a good idea of how badgering really went on. “Don’t be stupid,” he said. That was fairly early on in the piece, I should say. But you do not see me coming in here and making a big hullabaloo about it—as indeed with Mr Pratt.
Also, Mr Pratt is saying that he is talking about standards. I have looked at the dissenting report. There is something in there that I think is worth checking. And I will be checking it, Mr Pratt: make no mistake about this. Mr Stefaniak and Mrs Burke have asserted in that dissenting report that the ACT government has not taken up the commonwealth’s offer of assistance to put in a low-level bridge at Tharwa. Mr Speaker, no such offer has been received.
You have to ask yourself if there is some part of the parliament that is being misled—and by who? I do not know the answer to that, but let me assure you that I will be checking it. And if I find that members opposite have perhaps suggested something that is totally untrue, I will seek your advice on the next step, Mr Speaker.
I do not believe that what Mr Pratt has to say has any substance to it at all. He suggested earlier on that I refused to provide him with responses in terms of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .