Page 1692 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
compelled to answer questions. It is Mr Hargreaves’s duty, as a minister, to answer questions but that did not occur. There is no harm in saying, “I do not know; I will refer the matter to my officials.”
In conclusion, we are dealing with two issues. Mr Pratt, when reading extracts from the transcript, referred to the minister’s behaviour and rudeness and to his schoolyard antics. We can close our eyes to that because sometimes it is funny and we need a laugh. In general, I think we have closed our eyes to that in the Assembly over the years, but there is also the lack of cooperation, the failure to answer questions and the failure to cooperate with the committee. I support Mr Pratt’s motion.
MRS BURKE (Molonglo) (11:15): In many ways this is a disappointing day for the Assembly. After the winter break we are debating the behaviour of a member who has been here long enough to uphold the tenets of this chamber. I, like Mr Stefaniak, wondered what was the issue concerning Mr Hargreaves. During the course of the estimates committee hearings I, like Dr Foskey, was on edge as I did not know what he was going to come out with next. I do not know what happened or what caused his outburst but there is no excuse for behaviour such as that from a minister.
Ministerial codes of conduct must be upheld in this place if we are to be held in high regard by the community—something with which we often battle. Disappointingly, even today some government members are smirking and scoffing. I take this matter and what we are doing today very seriously. I do not particularly like what we are doing today but the time has come for us to take responsibility for our actions.
It is no good for members to make excuses and to say, “It was just banter”, or for Mr Corbell to dismiss the issue and to say that somebody was offended because that simply is not the case. Dr Foskey made a couple of good points about that issue. As Mr Corbell said, the establishment of a select committee, a privileges committee, is a very serious issue. The opposition is dealing only with the agenda of the Select Committee on Estimates, which found:
The committee considers that the behaviour of the Minister for Territory and Municipal Services substantially interfered with the work of the committee during the public hearings process. The committee considers that his behaviour could amount to a contempt, given that it was intimidatory and disrespectful to members of the committee, as a result of which the committee was inhibited from pursuing lines of questioning.
At these hearings it was Mr Hargreaves’s intention to have a go. I could tell from his demeanour and his manner that he was ready to have a go. Sadly, this is not the first time that this has occurred. Sometimes we have a laugh in this place when we engage in banter and when schoolyard tactics are employed, but when a minister appears before the Select Committee on Estimates—a minister who is to be held accountable for $3 billion of taxpayers’ money—the general public do not expect an arrogant minister to treat the committee with disdain and contempt and to embarrass departmental officials.
Mr Hargreaves could not see that departmental officials were embarrassed but we saw them casting their eyes downwards and shaking their heads. We could say that the opposition’s motion is a furphy and that we should not be debating such a motion. I
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .