Page 760 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 29 March 2006

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Unfortunately, this will not be the last case of employers dealing with employees in such a way because of these laws—laws which the local Liberals here have not only welcomed but also actively lobbied for. These are the laws that they sought to have imposed here. Mr Mulcahy has been grinning from ear to ear since the bill was tabled and he saw the full extent of how horrible these laws are. These are the laws that are being applied to workers not only in Mr Mulcahy’s electorate but also in every single electorate that we represent in this place. He should be more mindful of the fact that we are here to represent ordinary Canberrans. The federal Liberal government do not have a care in the world about working families in the ACT and it seems that neither do the local Liberal Party.

Policing—report on hit-and-run incident

MRS DUNNE: My question is to the minister for police. Minister, according to an article in the Canberra Times of Saturday, 25 March regarding the release of the ACT Policing report into the hit-and-run accident last year, you stated:

Let me assure the people of the ACT, I have had a look at this report … It is the independent Ombudsman’s view that the procedures were satisfactory, that the matter can now rest …

However, minister, in the same article it was stated that the Ombudsman had not signed off on the report and that, in fact, the Ombudsman himself stated:

I did not adopt the report at all.

Minister, on what basis do you claim to present a report which has satisfied the Ombudsman when the Ombudsman himself has not adopted that report?

MR HARGREAVES: Mr Speaker, just before I answer that question, can I advise you that there is always a reason to be suspicious whenever the opposition throw facts at you across the table. My colleagues and I would do well to regard whatever they say with some suspicion. For example, Mr Pratt said or implied in his question a moment ago that it was our fault that two CCTV cameras were down.

Mrs Burke: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order concerning relevance to the question.

MR HARGREAVES: There is relevance.

MR SPEAKER: The point is that Mr Hargreaves is dealing with the subject matter of the question. He is providing information additional to an earlier question and I do not see anything wrong with that.

MR HARGREAVES: Indeed. They are all linked. The common link is the report on the hit-and-run, Mr Speaker. In fact, Mr Pratt suggests that we were responsible because two cameras were down in Civic. Mr Speaker, those two cameras are in section 84, where a very large development is going on and the power source for that development means that those CCTV cameras could be, and are at the moment, inoperative. That has been

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .