Page 3786 - Week 10 - Thursday, 27 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
“Corruption” is a much stronger word than Mr Hanson used. Did we object? Did we send letters? Did we wheel out the public service? No, we did not.
Mr Corbell: Process.
MR SMYTH: Mr Corbell says “process”, and he is right. It is about the process.
Mr Corbell: Corruption of process.
MR SMYTH: And corruption. Mr Stanhope said:
Labor rejects the corruption, for instance …
There is more than one lot of corruption in this. But we will go on. Mr Corbell said in 2001:
So much for Gary Humphries’ often touted but seldom practised policy of openness and transparency of government.
Again he was criticising the FOI release process. It is interesting that the case was made and never answered that, of course, ministers have a role in the FOI process. And they do. You only need to consult the act. First and foremost, under the code of conduct, they are responsible for the good maintenance and delivery of the act; so there is a role there. Mr Corbell, in his press release, and Mr Stanhope, in his attacks, attack the ministers, exactly as Mr Hanson did in this case. It is exactly the same.
But what is good for the goose is apparently not good for the gander in this case.
Mrs Dunne: The “gooses”.
MR SMYTH: Perhaps what is not good for the “gooses” may well not be good for the gander. And that is the problem here. We have got this change of morality from the Labor Party to fit the circumstances.
In the evidence there are a number of contradictions from Mr Cormack. First and foremost, on a recall day, I asked how many meetings they had. Ms Gallagher said there was a discussion. She used the singular. She said:
I think we discussed it as soon as the media release went out.
But in the document from Mr Hanson we find there is a series of discussions and there was consideration and formulation of the letter. Again, we will never know the minister’s part in this because we never called for a submission and we never asked for her to be a witness, which is most unfortunate.
There is also the very important issue that goes to the heart of this: whether or not it was actually a cover-up. Mr Hanson asserts, and quite accurately, I believe, that the government knew of the plans for the development—not the DA. “We searched for a DA; we could not find a DA; therefore there is no development.” In paragraph 23 Mr Cormack, in trying to justify the FOI, says:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .