Page 190 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
On Mr Coe’s original point, I do not think Mr Hargreaves is irrelevant at the moment, in the sense that the issue of various staffers has been brought up in this conversation so I think there is a bit of latitude there. Your second point was—
Mr Coe: Reflection on a vote.
MR SPEAKER: I do not think Mr Hargreaves is adversely reflecting on the vote, but I would ask you to be mindful of your comments, Mr Hargreaves.
MR HARGREAVES: Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. I am sorely tempted, but I will take your advice quite willingly.
Mr Speaker, it was not this side of the house that introduced names into this parliament yesterday; it was those opposite. Those opposite named Mr Purtill here yesterday and invited us then to return fire and name people in their scandalous behaviour as reported in the debate yesterday. They then throw it across the chamber here, saying, “It’s okay for us to be naming people; why can’t the minister do it?”
The minister is doing exactly the right thing. He has advised this chamber, not only in response to this but in answers to questions already. He has told this chamber that it was a request for a media contact. That is the reason. If the reason does not suit you, suck it up, buttercup. Bad luck. If in fact the question is about which member of his staff it is, he has said, “No, not going to do that.” And now, because you want to go formal about this, he has identified the title. He has also indicated that, by not knocking it back, Mr Seselja has in fact named the staff member.
What else do people want? What they want is to create this smokescreen, this little hide in the wetlands so that they cannot be seen. They are under the spotlight. They are under the blowtorch of accountability, and they do not like it because they are blistering. They are blistering badly. You can tell by the body language. This is nothing more than a smokescreen. This motion has been satisfied. It has been satisfied.
Members interjecting—
MR HARGREAVES: Right? All right. There is a deafening silence. Wonderful stuff, isn’t it?
MR SPEAKER: Let’s not encourage them, Mr Hargreaves.
MR HARGREAVES: This motion—the questions contained in this motion—have been satisfied. We should get on and vote for it or against it.
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (2.58), in reply: In closing, Mr Speaker, let us be very clear that it is naive to believe that this was a call from Tony Hodges, who has since resigned, to find a simple media contact. We have seen that it was not. We have seen that it was a call to find someone that would stir up trouble. That is what Tony Hodges wanted to do. That is what the Prime Minister’s office wanted to do—stir up trouble at the tent embassy and get people to go down and cause trouble at the Lobby Restaurant.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video