Page 838 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 16 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
installation. Is that not what we asked? He denied it. He said there were no dodgy installations. But, yes, there are. His own department has at least two. But, worse than that, the document goes on to say:
There were 8 specific enquiries by phone—since 1 January 2010 prior to that data cannot be extracted for phone contacts re insulation as there was no specific insulation identifier in goods field for IBS phone contacts.
So we know there are eight specific phone inquiries, but we do not know how many before that, because we did not bother tracking it. The document continues:
2 related to M&D conduct—4 related to bona fides of the company—2 with enquiries re d2d. Please note this information is nonspecific due to the lack of an insulation category.
So the answer is: he did not know. He could not know about the phone inquiries because they were not tracking them, but this minister came into this place and was absolutely emphatic that there were no complaints. He said:
The problem with Mrs Dunne’s question is that there have been no complaints to authorities about any dodgy installation.
Well, hang on. Yes, there are two complaints relating to inadequate quality of installation. Again, he has misled. He persists with it today by using words like “context”, by using words like “not my responsibility”, by using words like “it’s a federal government scheme”. It does not matter. These are very simple issues when it comes to discussing whether you have misled the Assembly. You have to, according to Jon Stanhope’s code of conduct, take reasonable steps to ensure the factual content of statements made in the Assembly are soundly based. There is no sound basis to the statements that the minister made emphatically. It is a shame that the Hansard does not show the emphasis, because he said: “There are no documents. There have been no complaints.”
Then he persistently and wilfully comes back in this place and makes his statement where he regurgitates this letter to explain away the failings of the department, those who just make idle chatter. Again, he persistently and wilfully misleads this place.
The interesting thing about the FOI request is, in fact, the letter that Mr Corbell wrote to Minister Garrett. Because not only did Mr Corbell write to Mr Garrett, but it was suggested that the letter also be copied to the Hon Martin Ferguson MP “with whom you have already raised the matter”. So the minister was not only talking to one federal minister; he had been talking to two federal ministers and had correspondence with the federal government over this matter. Yet he came into this place on 11 February, and returned later in February and said, “I still stand by what I said.” Then today he comes in and stands here and tries to run the same line to say that he has not misled.
Misleading, in the end, is very simple: is what you told the Assembly at the time the truth? If it is not, did you come back in and then tell the Assembly the truth? Today when this is being debated, when you are called to account, have you told the truth? The answer is: this minister did not tell the truth. This is a minister who, over a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video