Page 2289 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 16 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (11.13): I want to speak in response to the amendment moved by Ms Bresnan. Ms Bresnan stood up in this place and spoke for all of 10 seconds. On such a fundamental and important issue as to whether or not one of the most senior public servants in the ACT should be hauled before a committee to answer questions, and the grounds that warrant such an investigation and drastic course of action, Ms Bresnan stood up and spoke for 10 seconds—and that is it.
We have heard no other explanation from the Greens, who stand up in this place and say they are the advocates of scrutiny and they are the advocates of fairness and impartiality in making sure the Assembly operates an appropriate parliament and does not abuse its powers and so on and so forth. But when it comes to the exercise of one of the parliament’s most significant and potentially draconian powers, which is the establishment and the conduct of a privileges committee, where was the argument from the Greens? Where were their considered reasons? Where was their explanation as to whether or not this course of action was warranted? Where was their argument? Where were their reasons? There were none, Mr Speaker. There were none whatsoever. Instead, Ms Bresnan said: “I am moving this motion. I am moving this amendment. Here it is, and that’s all I’ve got to say on the matter.” That is not good enough—not good enough from crossbench members who should know better; not good enough from crossbench members who need to make an argument.
Where is the argument? There has been none. I think the Greens are out of their league on this matter and they are conniving with the Liberal Party in a political stunt that seeks to threaten, intimidate, public servants who have the temerity to point out to members of the opposition where they are factually incorrect. It is not a political debate. This is what was very interesting about Mr Seselja’s comments—the suggestion by Mr Seselja that this was a political attack by Mr Cormack. It was no such thing; it was a letter pointing out where Mr Hanson was factually incorrect.
This leads me to my other point: why is it that Mr Cormack wrote directly to Mr Hanson? The reason for that, of course, is first and foremost because Mr Cormack is responsible under law for the administration of the Freedom of Information Act as it relates to his department. He is responsible, under law, for the administration of the act—not the Minister for Health. The Minister for Health is not responsible for ensuring that the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act are applied in the department of health; the chief executive of the department of health is. That is why when members opposite make freedom of information requests of departments they do not write to the minister. They write to the chief executive. They do not write to the minister. Indeed, Mr Hanson, in making this a freedom of information request, did not write to Ms Gallagher. He wrote to Mr Cormack, and Mr Cormack wrote back to him—or his delegate did—and provided him with his response to the request.
Mr Hanson then made allegations about the conduct of that freedom of information request—suggested that the department had been complicit in a political cover-up. Mr Cormack rejected those assertions by outlining on a factual basis—not a political basis—where Mr Hanson’s assertions were incorrect and invited him to reconsider
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .