Page 24 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 14 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
it, Madam Deputy Speaker—there is nothing in the motion—but those opposite raised this. It says, “A close family member in the office of the member.” Let us be crystal clear—“in the office of the member”.
Those folks across there need to think about whether or not the members’ code of conduct—which clearly talks about it in paragraph (8)—has actually been respected. They need to check it out. If they can put their hands on their hearts and say, “No, I do not have a close relative in my family working in my office as a member,” then fine. I suggest they ought to examine themselves a little more.
Opposition members interjecting—
MR HARGREAVES: They can talk to me as often as they like, but I do not listen to them. I do not listen to them until they stand on their feet appropriately in debate.
Mr Hanson says this is a confected outrage and it is a political attack on the Liberal Party. Mr Seselja said that Ms Gallagher has now backed out or is putting less gravitas on it. I remind the chamber that I raised it in the annual report hearings; it was not the government that raised it. Members would remember me asking the question of the Speaker: “Was this in one office or more than one office?” I saw the annual report myself and I checked it out and I asked a question. Now, I could have been political at the time, but I chose not to be. I wanted to see whether there was any substance in this by examining the freedom of information documents myself.
When did we get access to them, Madam Deputy Speaker? A few days ago. This is not a political attack confected over a long period of time. This is something we have now had revealed. The seriousness of the revelation is unbelievable. These people over here are saying that this is a political exercise. Well, the fact simply is that there is a track record here. The Chief Minister referred to some of the track record: the fact they had to repay $10,000 worth of community grants. But that is not the only scandal. Of course, there was the issue about the photocopying. But what about the issue in the Leader of the Opposition’s office before Mr Seselja became the leader? What about the hacking into the emails of Minister Wood? What we are seeing here is a culture of contempt for process.
I believe the Leader of the Opposition’s dismissal of this issue as trivia and the way he has said, “This isn’t an issue; it’s done now; it should go away,” is showing a contempt for the processes of this parliamentary precinct. I remind those opposite to be particularly cautious about the language they use and examine, if they will, the criteria for the creation of a privileges committee. A contempt of the parliament is right up there at the top end for examination by the privileges committee.
Those opposite say there are people who work here in a voluntary capacity. Of course they do. Reference was made to the minister’s office supporting him for the national conference. I can remember seeing staff members of those opposite getting trips interstate on the taxpayers’ purse to attend these things. I do not criticise that at all, because it contributes to the political policy making of those opposite. What I do criticise—or suspect, rather—is the fact that you pay for the director of a—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video