Page 3790 - Week 10 - Thursday, 27 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I note in Mr Smyth’s comments that he has basically come out and said he disagrees with this report. Well, all I would ask is: where is the dissenting report? If he feels so strongly about this matter, if he feels that it is so flawed and so wrong, why did he not write a dissenting report? He has done no such thing. This is a unanimous report from all three members of the committee. There is no dissenting report, and this is the report of the committee. I think we should be clear about this: if members disagree strongly with the findings of a committee report, they know what the course of action is—they write a dissenting report. Mr Smyth says he disagrees with the central findings of this committee. He has said that just now. Yet he has not written a dissenting report. I think that speaks for itself.
The other issue that I want to address is that Mr Hanson made a whole range of allegations about abuse of process, about the conduct of FOI, about a whole range of other matters. But, as I have said, those were matters that were outside the terms of reference of the inquiry. I think Mr Hanson sought to take advantage of and abuse the process by using the request to the committee for his submission to advance a whole range of political arguments, many of which he has not pursued in any other forum in this place. And I think that was—
Opposition members interjecting—
MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Smyth was heard in silence, and Mr Corbell will be held in silence in response.
MR CORBELL: I think that was an abuse by Mr Hanson. He has accused the minister of some very serious things; he has accused Mr Cormack of very serious things; and he has accused others of very serious things. The committee had to take a decision as to whether or not it should engage in that or whether it should let the report speak for itself. We have taken the decision that we will let the report speak for itself.
Consideration was given to whether or not Mr Hanson’s submission should be authorised for publication in full. The committee took the decision that, on balance, it should. In doing so, I think it is important to put on the record that I and I think Ms Hunter as well—I do not want to put words into her mouth, but it is my understanding of her position—feel that many of the claims made by Mr Hanson are outrageous, that they are without substantiation and that they are merely part of a broader political strategy on his part and certainly not relevant to the matters before the committee.
I want to turn to the issue of contempt and the issue of interference with members. The committee concluded—and it is dealt with in the report—that there really needs to be two things demonstrated to highlight whether there has been any improper interference with a member’s duty. The first is that it has to be improper; it cannot just be part of the normal process of lobbying a member or seeking to influence a member, which is part of the democratic process. Secondly, there has to be an intention to improperly interfere. Those are the two criteria the committee felt were central in considering this matter.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .