Page 449 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 23 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There were a series of questions asked in the estimates committee around this issue. And Mrs Dunne actually set it out very well in the hearing we had last week, where she set out what was said to the estimates committee and what was revealed through documents that she had obtained under freedom of information law. The two simply did not match up.
I think Ms Bresnan actually captured it quite well, that there seemed to be a statement, “I said it because of these reasons,” regardless of whether it was true, regardless of whether it was misleading, regardless of whether it gave a false and misleading impression to members of the estimates committee. And that is what we are dealing with here: in estimates committees or in any committee of this place, when this Assembly receives incorrect information, it is critically important—and this is why Mrs Dunne has made the case so strongly—that it is corrected at the first possible opportunity. It is critically important. If that information is given in any way knowing that it may be incorrect or that it may be misleading, that is a serious matter. And I think Ms Bresnan, in her comments, seemed to grasp the significance and the importance of that.
We have had numerous occasions in this place—and I referred to some of them earlier and Mr Corbell got very upset—where public servants or ministers have inadvertently misled. We always accept at face value that it is inadvertent when someone misleads. We accept that unless it is proven otherwise. But where that occurs, we have seen it with Mr Corbell this morning, and we have seen other cases where people come and they correct the record, hopefully at the first possible opportunity.
In this case, and partly on the basis of what was put subsequently to Mr Sullivan in the committee, it appears, on the face of it—and this is why Mrs Dunne has brought this motion; this is why it should be supported; this is why the committee should be established—that it was not a slip of the tongue or inadvertently giving incorrect information, that it was given, knowing that it may be misleading. That is the impression that was created, I think, for anyone who was sitting in that Assembly committee last week, as we heard Mr Sullivan’s evidence. That is why this is a serious issue; that is why we believe it needs to be looked at further.
It was asked by Mrs Dunne:
… I note … that 30 per cent on top … is $124.8 million. … why did you tell the committee the TOC was only in final form when only three days before it had been approved—
this is important; this was skated over by Mr Stanhope—
the board had recognised that it had been approved and it had authorised you to spend that money?
Mr Sullivan’s answer was:
Largely because we had not revealed the TOC …
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .