Page 3222 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 16 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
it at the expense of the community who expect better from their elected representatives. I commend Mr Smyth’s amendment to the Assembly.
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella) (11.48): I have served for a very long time in this place and I have seen some exercises in speeches being put forward merely for the sound of one’s own voice, and I think I have just heard another few of those. What we are seeing here is a double standard par excellence. It is almost like a double standard with pike, with a degree of difficulty of zero.
Those folk opposite talk about the rule of law and they talk about the condoning of those breaches of the rule of law. Ms Hunter indicated to us earlier that there was very little action taken against Mr Pratt when he actually rubbed out a legal graffiti site. All that happened in fact was that the community pilloried him for a fair while, and in fact they still do, which is more the pity because that was a breach of the law made in good faith. In other words, it was an act of silliness. But he is still paying for it, because I noticed recently that it was in the public arena.
I also recall that a privileges committee of this place found that a staff member of the then Leader of the Opposition, Gary Humphries, hacked into a minister’s email. That was proven, absolutely without doubt. Without doubt, that was proven. That individual did the honourable thing and resigned and left the precinct. I respect that, and I paid respect to that. But the silence of now Senator Humphries on that issue was phenomenal. He did nothing about it. Did he stand the officer down? No, he did not. Did he condone it? He just said nothing. When we challenged him to use executive authority and take executive responsibility for the actions of somebody coming out of his office, there were two rules: one for his office and one for somebody else. It seems as though the same thing applies here today.
Mr Speaker, the government has expressed its confidence in you in your role as the Speaker. We need also to be aware that the conversation in this chamber has been about your role as the Speaker and your role as a spokesman on other matters for your particular party. This is the very first time that anybody has carried that dual role. Those opposite, in their pontifications, would expect us all to get it right first time, every time. But they do not apply the same standards to themselves at all. They do not understand that first-term members here are on a very steep learning curve. They do not understand that the office that you have is a very sacred one, and I know how you regard that office and I support you in that view. I will support you and I will not vote for a no confidence motion against you in the remaining time I have here.
But let me tell you something, Mr Speaker. The heights of hypocrisy have now gone into the clouds. Those people over there fail to remember their own condoning of the breaches of law. They do not have any place to stand there hurling rocks at glass houses. Honourable members in this chamber will not support the original motion and will not support Mr Smyth’s amendment. Honourable members in this place will support the government’s amendment.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (11.52): I am happy to support Mr Smyth’s amendment because it is a real test of the character of members of this place. The leader of the house, the Attorney-General, said that the proposal from the opposition to move want
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video