Page 645 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 22 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Johnston. This is not a motion about Mr Johnston. Read it: it is about this place and it is about the standard that we want to put in place and the standard that we want to maintain.
Mr Rattenbury spoke about the words being unfortunate—
Ms Gallagher: You didn’t want to talk about standards yesterday.
MR SMYTH: Sorry—did not want to talk about what, Chief Minister?
Ms Gallagher: Standards, yesterday.
MR SMYTH: Speak up, Chief Minister. If you are going to interject, interject properly.
MR SPEAKER: Order, members! Let us not have a conversation, thank you. Mr Smyth.
MR SMYTH: He said they were unfortunate and he does not support them, and then he attempted to blame the Liberal Party. Why don’t you hold your coalition colleague to account? If you want to blame the Liberal Party, move your own substantive motion. Go for your life. It was inappropriate, you said, and it is. But you are not doing anything about it, so the inappropriateness stands.
Ms Bresnan used words like “I mean, honestly!” Well, I do mean, honestly: this is about this place. Ms Bresnan said that the Tuggeranong Community Council have always been respectful of MLAs when we attend. And they are; they are very good and they are very nice. So how about us being respectful to them in return? Let us return that respect by saying that these words are unacceptable and by passing a motion that condemns these words.
But, no, the Greens do not agree. They do not condemn and they do not do anything to hold their coalition partners to account. That is the problem. The Greens said they were third-party insurance for the community. But they are actually third-party insurance for the ALP. It was a policy cheaply bought, I suspect. But the problem is that the community is the loser in this. Letting it stand in this way really does raise the question: what do you actually believe in?
Mr Hargreaves came down and said that he was subjected to some abuse and that foolishly he responded. He then went on to say he apologised. So there is an apology there somewhere; I will check the Hansard when it is written as to what the apology was and to whom. But, as was pointed out by some members, he then went on to say there was a coup, that it was all organised by somebody else. Mr Johnston, whom we all respect, is in effect the beneficiary of that coup, because, when the leadership changed, Mr Johnston got the job. So if there was a coup you are actually accusing Darryl Johnston of being part of the coup. So again it goes on; it does not stop, because Mr Hargreaves is never held to account by this place. Then of course there is the apology required for the wider council, all the members previous to a point in time; they were the ones he did not like. Who is it and how far does it go?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video