Page 3793 - Week 10 - Thursday, 27 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
facility, known as the bush healing farm. On both occasions he categorically denied the existence of any such plan for a cellar door. I will read my estimates question and his response. I said:
When this was all going on, as well, there were allegations about a plan for a cellar door next door? We discussed this in the briefing as well. Can you extrapolate on those plans for the cellar door?
He stated:
There were not any.
It was a categorical denial. Now let me turn to the minister’s similar denials to the committee from Hansard. I said:
The briefing I received, and I think yesterday, said no, there were no plans for a winery next door.
Ms Gallagher said:
As far as we are aware.
However, an email written by the property owner to the Chief Minister on 9 July 2008 as provided to the opposition showed that she was, indeed, aware. The letter stated:
We had hoped to contribute to the agricultural aesthetic and tourism of the area by establishing a vineyard and ultimately, with government approval, cellar door sales and possibly a bed and breakfast establishment.
Disturbingly, the version of the email that was released under the FOI legislation to the opposition had the words “vineyard”, “cellar door” and “bed and breakfast” deleted. The deletions were justified under section 41 of the act on the basis that exposing their plans would identify the property owners. But you cannot have it both ways: you cannot deny to a committee that there were any plans for a cellar door and then use the same plans for a cellar door as the rationale for deleting information under the FOI act. This has become even more extraordinary in light of Mr Cormack’s submission to the privileges committee where he has used the words “planned development” to describe the plans he had previously denied to give justification of the FOI deletion.
The minister and her officials have contradicted themselves, and by doing so I believe they have misled the estimates committee. This is the important point in response to what Mr Corbell alleges—I had to make this point to provide the context in which Mr Cormack’s letter was written to me. It was in that context that I released a press release calling on the minister to account for the discrepancy. This what I said:
Minister for Health, Katy Gallagher has to explain why documents relating to the winery being built next to the proposed bush healing farm were censored to remove the mention of the cellar door.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .