Page 2216 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 28 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
was fair dinkum discussion and consultation before the event—and certainly at least after the event—this would take the wind out of the sails of the opposition and community activists. We do not see that.
We have seen that with the Tharwa community as well. We know that members of the Tharwa community who have questioned the department of municipal services about the processes undertaken to make the assessment of the old heritage bridge have not been told and not been shown the details of those engineering assessment processes. When they persevered with the roads and bridges section in the department of municipal services, they were told to go and take a running jump. They were not the words of the officials, but that is how the Tharwa community felt the message was being put to them: “Don’t worry about it. We’ve made a decision. You don’t need to see the detail”—when they, the Tharwa community, had real concerns about the processes and the decisions behind the assessment of the old heritage bridge.
We saw a repeat of this sort of behaviour here in this place when we asked questions about the Point Hut Road missing signs issue. We asked questions in the estimates hearings; we asked questions again in this place. We were told, “Don’t you worry about it.” When we asked the minister about this particular issue in writing, we had the minister coming back in writing to me and saying, “I am not going to answer that question about Point Hut Road until you give me the names of the constituents. We need to know.” The implication was (a) “Mr Pratt, you are lying”; (b) “The Tharwa community residents are probably lying as well”; and (c) “If they are not lying, do they even exist?” It is small wonder, Mr Speaker. Can I ask for an extension of time, Mr Speaker?
MR SPEAKER: You do not need an extension of time. You can have another 10 minutes, if that is what you wish.
MR PRATT: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. A seamless transition there—a seamless transition. Mr Speaker, why do you think shadow minister Jacqui Burke stood up here last week and rejected the government’s drive to make her present the names and details and the evidence to support her case? Jacqui Burke and other opposition MLAs feel exactly the same as I do, based on the example I have just given you, Chief Minister: “Steve Pratt will not get any answers in writing or in estimates about the Point Hut Road missing dangerous corner signage until you give us the names of the constituents.” We do not have any faith that ministers will not go on witch-hunts after the people who provide the information when those people’s names are provided to government. We will not provide people’s names to government.
We have no faith in a government which says, “Look, let us collapse the scrum on debate around here. We can easily do that by conducting witch-hunts; by belittling people; by discrediting them; by saying that they do not have a library card; by saying, ‘The evidence you have given to the MLA is probably false anyway’; or by not answering questions when you ring up and ask us about Tharwa Bridge and the engineering details behind the analysis. You know, we are simply not going to.”
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .