Page 1917 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 25 June 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Chief Minister of 19 July, which clearly outlines all of those sites as still being on the table. In this little package of documents, we can see the Liberals did have it because it was faxed to them from the Canberra Times on 16 June. So we have Mr Seselja saying he has never seen that document, repeatedly denying it, and not tabling it today as part of these documents, because it did not quite fit with the argument of today, did it? The fact that all of those sites were on the table and it was encouraged that Actew continue to consider them did not fit with the arguments of today. It is very convenient, Mr Seselja, to just omit or, dare I say it, selectively table documents, which goes to the third paragraph of the motion.
The third paragraph of the motion refers to “selectively releasing materials to the media” and also goes to allegations raised by Mr Pratt, Mr Smyth and Mr Seselja, and even by Dr Foskey today, that the Chief Minister has had some role in withholding parts of records through the FOI process. In fact, the use by Mr Pratt of the words “he is withholding 3,000 documents” shows a complete lack of understanding of the FOI process or it shows an understanding, in the allegations that are being raised, that the Chief Minister knowingly interfered with an FOI process or alternatively that public servants responsible for that FOI process have allowed this process to be interfered with. They are most serious allegations that all of you who have spoken today have made. I do not think you realise how serious they are.
Yet again, as we are learning from Mr Seselja, there is no proof. You don’t need any proof to substantiate these allegations—just throw it out there and see if it flies, see if the Canberra Times picks it up, see if you can get a run on the news. It does not matter if you can’t support it; it does not matter if you are offending every FOI officer in the ACT government, who take their job very seriously about how they release information under the FOI law. They are actually breaking the law if what you are alleging has occurred. So if it has occurred and you know it has occurred, you need to prove it, and you have not been able to do so. What you have raised today is the most serious of allegations.
Mr Seselja: You don’t understand the argument.
MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Seselja!
MS GALLAGHER: Yes, I do understand the argument, Mr Seselja, but it is uncomfortable for you because it is sort of moving away from the mantra that you have in your head.
Mr Seselja: He can release them, and he has chosen not to.
MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Seselja!
MS GALLAGHER: I can tell you how arm’s length the government is from FOI. I was the Acting Chief Minister, I believe, when those documents may have been released to the opposition. The first opportunity when I learnt that FOI had been released was when John Thistleton rang me with questions about the release of FOI information. That is the first point at which I became aware that the FOI information had even gone to you. So for all of you to stand up here and allege that we have interfered inappropriately in the FOI process, and not only us, but to allege that public
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .