Page 2489 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 29 June 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
comprehend simple things. The issue that I want to dwell on particularly is that the Assembly expresses its concern over the misleading and evasive answers provided to questions on notice by the minister in relation to this issue. Mr Seselja’s chronology of what happened during estimates and subsequently is quite clear. On 31 May he and others asked the question, “Has this working group been put together?” and the answer from everybody, not just the minister, was, “I don’t know. Gee, I don’t know. We’ll take it on notice and we’ll get back to you.”
Ms Gallagher: Can’t answer a question correctly, can you?
MRS DUNNE: No, there is nothing wrong with saying, “I don’t know the answer to the question.” No-one is criticising you for that. There is nothing wrong with saying, “I don’t know the answer to the question. I’ll find out.” But what actually happened was they went outside and found out that, no, at the time Mr Seselja asked the question—and that is the point, Mr Speaker—they had not formed this group. The answer to the question was, “No.” So to cover their tracks they went around in a complete flurry and, in the course of one day, established this committee.
They may have been doing some work. The minister tells us that people were working on this in May. Well, the question was asked on 31 May, so perhaps on 31 May they did some work. They came back and the day after, on 1 June, they established this committee and it met six days later. So what actually happened was the minister came back on the 7th and said, “This committee has been established”—at a time unspecified but with the clear implication that on 31 May when Mr Seselja asked the question that committee had been established, when it clearly had not, Mr Speaker. This is where it misleads.
By being evasive, by not telling the whole truth, the minister gave the clear impression that on 31 May, when the question was asked, that committee had been established. After all, it met on 6 June—a reasonable time. When Mr Seselja delved into this we discovered that in fact this committee was not established when he asked the question. It was established after he asked the question.
My principal concern is that the answer the minister gave was designed to mislead. At the time the question was asked there was no committee. The correct answer to the question that Mr Seselja asked would have been, “At the time you asked this question there was no committee but since then we have taken certain steps and the committee was convened and met on 6 June.” That would have been an accurate answer. It would probably have been the end of the story. Some people might have said it took four to six months to do this—pretty inefficient, a bit tardy, but it would have been the end of the issue.
As we learn with all things in life, truth is the best way out. If you tell the whole truth there is nowhere else to go. The whole truth is fairly obvious. Minister, on 31 May you were asked, “Has this committee been established?” You replied, “I don’t know. I’ll go and find out.” That was a fair enough answer. It was then a case of, “Oh, goodness me, it has not. We had better make ourselves look good.” You tried to cover your tracks and you did it badly. You misled the estimates committee by giving a less than fulsome answer. If you had been fulsome and said, “The correct answer is we haven’t established it but we have taken steps to—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .