Page 1687 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Pratt makes the argument that he has a thick skin, but the evidence shows otherwise. Indeed, what we heard from Mr Pratt was a whole litany of minor asides and assertions made by the minister that he has taken offence to. Because he has taken offence, he has decided that referring the matter to a privileges committee is the only way to deal with it. He has not made an argument showing how his ability as a member to do his work has been obstructed or hindered by Mr Hargreaves. So it is a very poor argument in terms of justification for establishing a privileges committee.
There is another matter which is more serious, in the government’s mind, than the very poor claims that have been made by Mr Pratt—that is, the assertion made by Mr Pratt that Mr Hargreaves’s behaviour has been truly contemptuous. It seems to me that the Liberal Party have already decided what the verdict is going to be in relation to this privileges committee, if it is established. I think it is a case of verdict first and then the process. That is backed up by the fact that they have indicated they wish to have a majority on this committee and they wish to chair it.
When you link that with the assertion by Mr Pratt that he considers Mr Hargreaves’s behaviour to be “truly contemptuous”, you see that he has already made the decision, as have the Liberal party room. They want a majority, they want to chair the committee and, as Mr Pratt has indicated, they have decided that Mr Hargreaves’s behaviour is truly contemptuous. Game, set and match: they have already made their decision. Again, that really brings into question the motives of the Liberal Party in this regard.
Privileges committees are for serious matters, where the Assembly as a whole decides that a member’s activities as an elected member have been unduly hindered or obstructed by another member of this place. Mr Pratt has not made that argument. He has simply put together a whole litany of asides and affronts that he feels he does not like; therefore he wants these matters looked at. But he has not actually indicated where he has been unable to do his work. He has not indicated where, as an elected representative, he has been obstructed. He has not indicated how he has been unable to pursue his responsibilities as an elected representative because of the actions of Mr Hargreaves. He has done none of those things. All he has said is, “I’m offended.” Well, gee! We all get offended in this place from time to time but that is not a reason for establishing a privileges committee. The government does not support the motion.
MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra—Leader of the Opposition) (10.57): I will correct the Attorney-General and advise him of a few things he has totally missed here. Firstly, with respect to the motion itself and why the committee would be comprised of one member of the government and two members of the opposition, it is because of a simple mathematical equation in terms of conflict of interest. There are a number of people who cannot serve on the committee. Firstly, there is Mr Pratt; he is the complainant. Secondly, there are the members of the estimates committee, who had to put up with Mr Hargreaves’s appalling behaviour and who took the action they did. They took the action with some reluctance; nevertheless they took the action because of the quite extraordinary behaviour on that particular day, 26 June. I will come to that in a moment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .