Page 2431 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 1 July 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
and due regard to my human rights to have let me know that you were actually going to do it. That is just common decency and, I would have thought, common practice given that most of these things seem to come through Mr Speaker.
Obviously the government has the numbers and will get this through. When you raised this matter at the committee, I was somewhat concerned that obviously someone on the committee was perhaps imparting to you information about what goes on in committee, which is also improper and that, in itself, could constitute, if you wanted to be highly technical, a breach of privilege as well. If anything goes wrong like this, it is something that needs to be taken up with the committee in the first instance and then further action can be taken if necessary.
Mr Corbell referred to a letter. Yes, I sent you a letter. I think it says “request”, not “require”. It related to a series of documents we had all been discussing in the course of fairly lengthy hearings. I would have thought it was somewhat procedural. I have already spoken to my committee in terms of that, and we have dealt with that. I indicated that, if I had done anything wrong, I would apologise for that and we would move on. I regarded that as procedural, and if you go through the transcript, you will see all of those documents requested. You are a big boy, Mr Corbell; you are the minister. At the end of the day, you can refuse a request. The next step a committee would take, which would have to be the whole committee, would be to require, to demand, those documents, hence the meeting we had before the actual hearing commenced where the committee came to a decision.
Might I also say that I have the most experienced committee secretary in the Assembly who drafted the letter that I sent off. If the letter did not go to other members, fine, because it is procedural. If the committee secretary seems to think that is okay, then why on earth would I think otherwise?
On a number of occasions the need for these documents was discussed, and the letter I sent you was a request, not a requirement. The committee met and made some further requests—they might have even been demands in relation to certain matters—and decided not to proceed with other ones in the light of your letter in response. It is a very minor matter, Mr Corbell. By all means, set up your witch-hunt; set up your select committee. I wonder what you are trying to hide here yourself. I think there might be some other issues in relation to this about your knowledge of it anyway. By all means, let us have your select committee. There is no way we can stop you, but I do think it is totally wrong. I think the secret way you are going about it—the ambush today—is concerning in itself.
I think I made it fairly plain at the time, but I will make it fairly plain to you again Mr Corbell—it was a letter requesting documents. It was procedural; it went through the committee secretary. All right, it might not have gone to the other two members, and I apologise for that. I did that on the day we had our private meeting. We then proceeded to have our hearing. We then proceeded to require, I think, documents from you which, again, you would not supply. One perhaps wonders why you are not supplying some of these documents. What are you trying to hide, Mr Corbell? With the government’s numbers in this place, this is just a waste of time. By all means have your committee; you have got the numbers to do it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .