Page 2173 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 28 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
and the crossbench—to work together more. I do not have a problem with that at all. I make this observation: I do not find it acceptable to criticise the executive for not having these conversations when I particularly have not been approached by members of the opposition to discuss an issue.
As Dr Foskey would well know, I respond to her office’s email requests within half a day, sometimes within 10 minutes. I do not wish to counter what Dr Foskey was saying, but I say this: if Dr Foskey wishes to explore issues further, she is more than welcome to give my office a ring, and we will be only too pleased to have discussions with her.
I make an observation in relation to this amount for the executive: the history of provision of support for the executive in this city—both for the Legislative Assembly and the executive—is such that decisions have been taken in an environment for which both sides of this chamber can take some responsibility. If there is an accusation of parsimony in this place, we need both sides of this place to accept it.
I do not accept a criticism. I have been here in opposition. I have had seven shadow portfolios with two staff and had to make do with that. I now have a ministerial staff. I find that I do not have enough resources. I do not have the DOA available to me to correspond with my constituents either. There is a degree of, if you like, agreement. But unless those opposite stop playing politics with it and enter into genuine dialogue with the Chief Minister around this, we will be back here in 12 months saying exactly the same things.
Mr Stefaniak stood up and, apart from the 20 seconds he addressed this particular line item, he laid into the government about its lack of cooperation, its arrogance and everything else about the estimates committee. He did not put the situation as it truly was. He did not. As a matter of fact, I am now expecting a whole diatribe—subterranean grumblings of interjections—from Mrs Burke. Let us just see how much self-control she has, given that she accuses me of having not much of it. We will test it. We will also test Mr Pratt.
An examination of the two sets of appearances reveals that, of the 44 topics, I have answered all of them except for four. In fact, they were questions taken on notice. All of the questions without notice were answered. I also observe, when these people across here are saying, “You’re obfuscating, you’re trying to avoid answering questions”, and things like that—
Mr Pratt: You’re a master of it. You’re very good at it.
MR HARGREAVES: Here we go again. This is exactly the point I make. In the space of a two-hour session with the estimates committee, the Liberal Party—visitors or members—interjected 160 times. We do not hear that side of the argument, do we? We do not hear that side of the so-called “poor parliamentary behaviour”. We do not, for example, see the sorts of things that Mrs Burke did in the hearing, when she said, addressing me, “Can you confirm or deny if you or Mr Zissler breached the Workplace Relations Act and were there any shifts provided? Blah, blah, blah.” That is a direct imputation, which is a breach of standing orders.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .