Page 3787 - Week 10 - Thursday, 27 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
While the correctness of the decision in this instance is ultimately irrelevant to this inquiry, I submit that information relating to planned development by an individual lessee could, when connected with an identified adjoining property, allow the lessee to be identified by a significant section, or a reasonably knowledgeable member, of the community.
There was a plan for development. The very thing that Mr Hanson questioned is admitted to in Mr Cormack’s document—not a DA, not this sham “we could not find a DA when we looked”. Mr Hanson asked, “Was there a cellar door? Was there a vineyard? Was there a B and B?” They are all blacked out of the document that prompted the press release accusing the minister of certain actions.
In paragraph 23 we have that confirmed. “We blocked out information relating to planned development”—not DA, planned development—“by the lessee”. There is the confirmation that Mr Hanson is correct. But again, no public hearings; we did not call the minister. I actually moved that we call the lessee, that we call other public servants. But no, that was blocked. But we have it there in black and white “information relating to the planned development”. Again, it is unfortunate that we have never had that investigated. It was never investigated. Again, there were no hearings.
Interested parties can read this in the minutes. I moved that a succinct summary of what happened be included. It was this:
Mr Cormack claims that Mr Hanson’s press release was aimed at the Department, as he states that Ministers have no role in the administration of the FOI Act. This claim is incorrect. Not only are Ministers responsible for the good administration of law by their departments but, in some cases, they actually have powers under the FOI Act. The Code of Conduct for Ministers says, “Ministers are individually accountable to the Assembly for the administration of their Department and Agencies.” To suggest otherwise is incorrect. As a professional public servant of long standing, Mr Cormack should have known this.
Therefore Mr Cormack’s claim that the press release injures his reputation is also incorrect. It follows that the request for certain actions, as outlined in his letter, is based on a false premise and this means his letter was malicious, misguided or inappropriate.
Given that contact between Members and public servants is usually regulated by the relevant Minister’s office, it is clear that in this case the letter was inappropriate.
In relation to finding No 2, I moved:
The committee finds that the writing of the letter by Mr Cormack requesting certain actions was inappropriate.
The other members of the committee voted that down. I think that is a shame. I think it is a shame because what we do now is set a low standard. We set a low bar and we say that it is now entirely appropriate for one-way traffic. Public servants can write to members but members cannot come back at the public servants.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .