Page 816 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 16 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
That is not right. We have, indeed, a departmental document—one of the documents which Mr Corbell said did not exist; one of the documents that we were told did not exist—which was actually created on 11 February which said, “Actually, there were a number of complaints.” The document states:
There were a number of complaints in relation to the home insulation scheme. We have seen a number in relation to potential M&D conduct following the change in the amount of the rebate. This issue made up 4 of the complaints. 1 complaint related to an occasion where allegedly they had been denied the rebate. 2 complaints relate to inadequate quality of installation.
We ask a question. He answers and says, “There are no complaints about poor installation.” And we have a document which he claimed did not exist which shows otherwise, which contradicts what he told this place. And he expects us to accept that this is just semantics. It is semantics for a minister to come in and say, “There are no documents.” When he is caught out on that he says, “Well, I didn’t know about any of them and I shouldn’t have known about any of them.”
Then when he is caught out again, in that he has signed documents, that he received documents, he says on Ross Solly’s program today: “I didn’t think they meant those documents. I didn’t think they meant correspondence in relation to the scheme.” I mean, you guys didn’t mean that, did you?
Mr Hanson: No.
MR SESELJA: No, “You only meant these types of documents which I had in my hand.” It is a ridiculous response. It is a ridiculous defence. The documents that he wanted to hide, the documents that he claimed did not exist, contradict what he told this place on several occasions. He went on to say:
I have … indicated to this place that the government has received no complaints about dodgy installation since the commonwealth program commenced … We have not seen any reports of dodgy installation to the regulatory authorities.
“There have been no complaints received by our regulatory agencies in relation to dodgy practice.” No complaints about dodgy practice, no complaints about poor installation. The document which he claimed did not exist clearly and unambiguously contradicts what he told this Assembly.
Why is this important? It is important from a number of perspectives. We have, first and foremost, a principle that in this place you tell the truth, that in this place you come in and give honest answers. And if you ever get it wrong, you correct it at the first opportunity. He did not do that. In fact, his correction misled again. His apparent correction actually muddied the waters more, actually misled again and actually omitted to mention the documents that he himself had signed—the documents that he himself had received.
But we know that this is not a trivial issue. We have a situation where ACT regulatory authorities, the ACT government, were concerned. At some level there was serious concern about this scheme. There was concern about the fact, as was put in that April
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video