Page 2443 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 1 July 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Might I reiterate that I have two letters here now. One is to the attorney, dated 16 June, after two requests were made in open hearing. No-one dissented from those; they were commonly agreed. Also there were some more general requests earlier which obviously will come out in the course of this inquiry. I sent a letter on 16 June requesting that he bring certain documents—five documents. He wrote back indicating he would bring some and not bring others. None of it was rocket science. All of these matters had been aired in the various hearings we had had to date.
I have already indicated that if there is anything I did wrong, I am sorry for it. Everything was done, certainly in good faith—very routine, I would think. If we need to revise the rules so that even routine things all have to go through everyone on the committee, fine.
I have another document which I am happy to table at this stage, a letter from me on 20 June. This was in relation to Mr Corbell’s response to my letter of 16 June. This was sent after the committee dealt with the matter which Mr Corbell is now trying to send off to a select committee. We did not deal with new paragraph 1 (a) but that in itself perhaps is hardly rocket science either.
The further letter thanked him for his letter of the 19th. This was passed through the committee before we sat at 9.30, typed and sent to the attorney, who appeared at 11.00 or 11.30 that day. The letter states:
However, I note that the following documents have not been supplied:
• the exit interviews of RFS Chief Officers and Staff from 1/7/07 to date; and
• the Stuart Ellis Report.
The Legal Affairs Committee considered this matter at a private meeting this morning. The Committee requires the Stuart Ellis report as a matter of urgency and the Committee would appreciate receiving that document when you appear at the public hearing later on this morning. The Committee will not be pursuing the request for the exit interview documents at this time.
We considered your letter. This document came out as a response. There was no question of my sending it after the secretary typed it up. It was decided on by the committee, typed up by the secretary and sent to you because, after getting your letter of the 19th, after considering everything—and this covers comments you made today—we required a document which you did not supply.
I am not even going to go into whether you should or should not, Mr Corbell. You are a big boy. You have been a minister for a long time. This shock, horror you are coming up with today, I find, quite frankly, pathetic and a waste of time. And you can smirk all you like, Mr Corbell. I think this is a total waste of time. I think this document, which I tabled, shows it. That is actually a letter requiring something.
MR SPEAKER: You will need leave, Mr Stefaniak.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .