Page 1269 - Week 05 - Thursday, 31 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The case that has been put by Mrs Dunne and Mr Stefaniak does not actually hold up. Either inadvertently or deliberately, they are confusing two issues. The first issue is the seriousness of inappropriate behaviour in the schools. We can have that conversation, and I think we would all treat that conversation very seriously. The other issue that they are confusing it with is whether or not the minister was aware that there was a breach of protocol. He has read out a letter—a briefing from his department—saying, “Minister, we are advising you that there has been no breach of protocol.” What did he say in answer to the question yesterday? “There has been no flagrant breach of protocol.” It could have been any type of breach, but there was not one.
What the minister has said is absolutely consistent with the briefing that he received. From all conversations hitherto, there has not been one. But what happens? Yesterday, Mrs Dunne writes a letter to the minister and requires an answer—very smartly—after she gets question time set up. The minister responds to her with the speed of greased lightning. She does not like it. She does not like the answer. So what does she do? She says to him this morning, “Unless you get up and contradict the truth, I am going to put on a censure motion.”
Mrs Dunne: Talk about contradicting the truth.
MR HARGREAVES: It is. Why does Mrs Dunne not just ask the question of Mr Barr, challenge the advice from the department and say, “Mr Barr, I do not think your advice is sound; I think it is wrong; will you look into it, please”? Mr Barr would have said, “Yes, most certainly, Mrs Dunne. I will do that.” Mr Barr is treating these matters with the cordiality that this place demands. He has also treated this subject with the courtesy and the gravitas that this Assembly demands. That courtesy has not been extended to Mr Barr. The speed with which this censure motion has come on beggars belief.
Mr Speaker, let me summarise. There has been no proof provided that the minister was aware of any breach of protocol. On the contrary, there has been evidence produced by the department advising the minister that there was no such breach. Secondly, Mr Stefaniak could not prove the case either. A former public prosecutor could not prove the case. Well, good on you. Mr Speaker, this is a silly censure motion which should be treated as such.
MR PRATT (Brindabella) (11.22): I stand to support Mrs Dunne’s censure motion. This minister must be censured. This minister has either inadvertently or deliberately misled the Assembly—I would think inadvertently. He at least has been sloppy in his duties as a minister—he has not been on top of his game with this particular issue, a very serious issue—and therefore he deserves to be censured.
Mr Barr, as the minister for education, has a duty of care and responsibility for the students of the territory in his charge. He has a duty of care to ensure that they can be educated safely and calmly in a secure environment. Let us not forget that, given the pressures of modern society, if as a community we are not on our toes, there will be bullying leading to violence in our schools and colleges. There are so many pressures on families that this is an issue that must be well managed in our schools.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .