Page 1270 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Opposition members interjecting—
MR HARGREAVES: It occurs along the way for a given project. It does not talk about shared aims and visions.
Opposition members interjecting—
MR HARGREAVES: They can just babble away as much as they like, interjecting—because they do not like what they are hearing. The simple fact is that there is no official connection between any member here. An official connection has to be based in the AAOs. The appointment of ministers by the Chief Minister is done under the AAOs. The Chief Minister is appointed by this Assembly. The Labor-Greens agreement does not say, “Jon Stanhope, Chief Minister”; it says, “Jon Stanhope, on behalf of the Australian Labor Party.” It does not say, “Meredith Hunter, Convenor of the crossbench of this Assembly”; it says, “Meredith Hunter, on behalf of the ACT Greens.” The rest of us here were witnesses to that agreement going forward. We have all signed it as witnesses. There is no official capacity other than as a witness. These people know it.
Have a look at how many lawyers you have got over there. There is one. Of course he was a senior lawyer in the public service—for at least a fortnight before he came in here—but he knows what the distinction between a signatory and a witness is. And, if he does not know what the difference between a signatory and a witness is, he ought to give his law degree back.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Hargreaves. From now the substance of the debate—
MR HARGREAVES: Yes, sure. What we are talking about is that it goes to the point of being officially connected, and “officially connected” is not as a witness to anything. These guys know that. Mr Seselja knows that only too well.
Mr Hanson: Why are you filibustering on a debate that your side is wanting to close down?
MR HARGREAVES: We are not filibustering on any debate—responding to Mr Hanson, who started this whole process through Mr Smyth. The point, Mr Speaker, is that they had 70 minutes to make their case and they still have not been able to do it. Between them they have not been able to do it. These guys are lining up one by one to try and make a case. But it is not going to work because you have not got a case; you do not have a case. I am sorry, you do not have a case. Mr Speaker, this dissent from your ruling has to be rejected.
MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (3.31): I will be brief, given that we have already spent an hour and a half on this. The first point I want to make is that there has been a lot of noise during this debate and Ms Hunter did, in fact, mention standing order 114, even if members of the Liberal Party, unfortunately, were not listening to her at that point in time.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video