Page 3788 - Week 10 - Thursday, 27 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The problem with this, though, is that I wanted the word “inappropriate”. But in previous hearings the committee had decided, and it was resolved—and I refer to the meeting of 30 July, when Mr Corbell moved—unanimously by the committee:
That, while paragraphs 1 to 6 of Mr Cormack’s letter to Mr Hanson seemed appropriate, paragraphs 7 and 8 were interpreted by Mr Hanson as a threat and on that basis were considered by the committee to be ill-advised.
It was agreed to by Mr Corbell, the Attorney General; Ms Hunter, Parliamentary Convenor of the Greens; and me. Let me read that again:
That, while paragraphs 1 to 6 of Mr Cormack’s letter to Mr Hanson seemed appropriate, paragraphs 7 and 8 were interpreted by Mr Hanson as a threat and on that basis were considered by the committee to be ill-advised.
The head of the health department is ill advised in his actions. That was the unanimous decision of the committee.
You can argue whether you should use “ill advised” or “inappropriate”. In some cases I think you can make a case that they are perhaps interchangeable. But the problem here is that the actual finding, in fact, leaves Mr Cormack under a cloud. Finding No 2 was:
The committee makes no finding in relation to whether the letter of Mr Cormack’s was an appropriate response in the circumstances of Mr Hanson’s press release.
We do believe, though, it is ill advised. The man who advises the health minister, according to the Attorney General, the Parliamentary Convenor of the Greens and me, is ill advised in his actions. And that is the problem. The committee should have said what he did was inappropriate. The committee should have given some guidance and the committee should have made it quite clear that we did not want this to happen again.
The committee goes on in its only recommendation and says:
That the government clarify the relationship between public servants and non-Executive Members of the Assembly, with a view to issuing guidelines for any interaction that is not covered by existing guidelines.
That is a reasonable recommendation. But the problem here is that what we have is that that somebody who gives poor advice, who is ill advised in his actions, is the head of the health department. And that is a problem. That problem remains. And that is agreed to by all parties in this place. All three parties agreed to that.
The future of this is interesting. I think there will be more that comes out of it. I also moved that we include some paragraphs in regard to assistance to members. Again, people can go to the minutes. I moved:
“The protection of members
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .