Page 3792 - Week 10 - Thursday, 27 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR SMYTH (Brindabella): I seek leave under standing order 47 to explain words.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Smyth, I remind you of the terms of standing order 47 about confining yourself to the areas in which you have been misquoted or misunderstood.
MR SMYTH: That is fine, Mr Speaker. I made it clear that I did not agree with the report. I ask members to simply go to page 3 of the minutes of meeting No 6. Mr Corbell said that it is a unanimous decision of the committee. It is not. Mr Corbell resolved that the draft report, as amended, be adopted. The next line in the minutes says:
Mr Smyth asked that his dissent be recorded.
It is unfortunate that Mr Corbell has portrayed it in that way. Mr Corbell also said that I was acting in a political manner. I think Ms Hunter will attest to the fact that the actual paragraph Mr Corbell was just quoting from that says you have to find two things is, in fact, paragraph 45(a). I actually made it clear to the members of the committee that their case was flawed because they had only addressed one of the concerns, and if they actually wanted to present a cogent case they needed to include the second part, which they actually did. So I acted as a good committee member should—that is, to try to come to a cogent case.
I dissented from it, but in terms of making sure that as an Assembly we receive reports that actually make sense, I played a part in this committee. I did not agree with it, but I did help. I think it is unfortunate that Mr Corbell has tried to explain it in that way.
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (10.49): Firstly, I will turn to some of the comments made by Mr Corbell. This matter was not brought forward by me as a political exercise. My response has been entirely genuine. I did feel that it contained a veiled threat; I did feel that it was an attempt to influence me. The reason that the evidence that I provided goes into so much detail was in order to demonstrate that the letter was both inappropriate and was a matter of contempt in that it tried to influence me, I needed to go to the full issues at hand, including the briefings that were given to me, the details surrounding the FOI, the comments that were made at the estimates committee, the relationship to ministerial responsibility and the FOI action. Unless I was able to go to all those matters, it would have not enabled me to make my case, which I believe I have.
I thank the committee for their report, but I state that I believe that a finding of contempt should have been made. I am surprised that the committee has been unable to do so or make the finding with regard to whether Mr Cormack’s response was appropriate or not. I have, unfortunately, been denied the ability to present my evidence in public, but I encourage you all to read my written evidence and examine in detail what has happened in this regard.
In a briefing to me on 17 April and at estimates hearings on 21 May, Mr Cormack was asked about the validity of media reports that a wine and cellar door were being planned by the owners of the property neighbouring the Indigenous alcohol rehab
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .