Page 2286 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 16 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
given a justification as to why. Mr Hanson drew a very reasonable conclusion, which is that it was an inappropriate covering up of those words. There was no justification given as to why that particular piece of information was personal information that needed to be censored and blacked out whereas other parts of the email, which clearly could have the effect of identifying the individuals, were not blacked out.
Mr Corbell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker,
Ms Gallagher: You are not inquiring into this then. You are not inquiring into it.
MR SESELJA: Sorry; we are.
Ms Gallagher: No, you are not. You are not inquiring into the FOI decisions.
Mr Corbell: Mr Speaker, the motion before us is whether or not a privileges committee should be established—
Ms Gallagher: Haven’t you made the leap? You try to do someone—
MR SESELJA: This is the genesis of the correspondence.
Ms Gallagher: the Chief Executive of ACT Health over—
MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Corbell has the floor.
Mr Corbell: and whether Mr Cormack’s letter and its instructions amounted to interference with Mr Hanson’s duties and whether this constitutes a breach of privilege. It is about Mr Cormack’s letter and Mr Hanson’s duties. It is not about re-agitating an FOI request decision. It has got nothing to do with that.
MR SESELJA: On the point of order, Mr Speaker: Mr Corbell and Ms Gallagher have had a lot of latitude and they have questioned Mr Hanson’s motives. They have made all sorts of allegations about why he has brought this, and it is reasonable—I know they do not like it, but it is reasonable—that we respond to that and we go to what was the genesis of this correspondence.
MR SPEAKER: There is no point of order. I think the discussion has been quite wide ranging thus far and Ms Bresnan’s amendment specifically refers to Mr Hanson’s media release.
MR SESELJA: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I know they do not want to hear this, because there is a reason why they did not address this issue of substance and it goes to how this matter emerged. It emerged because, quite blatantly, words were blacked out which were embarrassing. No-one has disputed that words were blacked out that were embarrassing, and no-one has even attempted to make the case that those embarrassing words were blacked out because of personal privacy reasons. It was not about personal privacy, which is—
Ms Gallagher: Because this debate isn’t to do with the FOI process, Zed. You are appealing it, aren’t you?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .