Page 1667 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 1 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We know that the Auditor-General reports without fear. In the past we have seen a range of Auditor-General reports which have been highly critical of government and which the government have come in here and been extremely upset about. The emergency services response time is one example. Mr Smyth took the government to task on it, the government were in significant disagreement, and yet we had a debate here. So to suggest that the Auditor-General does not have the resources, the capability or the necessary independence is somewhat ludicrous. Somehow, because the Greens have supported the Auditor-General being involved in this, we are not prepared to ensure scrutiny of this matter. Well, we are. We are concerned by this. Ms Bresnan has been very clear about that both in her public remarks and in the debate today.
I think we have to ask what sort of accountability we want. Do we want the sort of accountability that actually gets to the bottom of it or do we want the sort of accountability that gets Mr Hanson another headline? That seems to be the sort of accountability the Liberal Party wants. It is all about the headline, not the outcome. I think Mr Hanson’s actions on his anonymous email are very instructive when it comes to this matter. There are two issues with that. It was fascinating to listen to him on radio last week. This is relevant to today’s debate because it goes to the motivation and the credibility with which we can approach the motion that has been put on the table today.
There are two issues with the anonymous email that Mr Hanson got. The first was that it was anonymous and the second was that he sat on it. Let us have a look at each of those. The first question is: is that the new standard in this chamber? Are we going to come in here on the basis of anonymous emails and make accusations or, for that matter, make them in public? Is that the basis of research that Mr Hanson now intends to operate on? Is that the basis on which we are going to read the Liberal Party policy platform later this year? Is it all going to be based on anonymous emails? This raises questions. Did Mr Hanson seek to verify the so-called source of the email? Did he write back to the person and say, “Can we—
Mr Hanson interjecting—
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Hanson!
MR RATTENBURY: Mr Hanson raised accusations about the Calvary hospital based on an anonymous email. Did he write back to that emailer and ask for further information? Did he seek to verify with any third party that information or whether there was any basis for it? Did Mr Hanson seek any further information or did he just jump up on the basis of an anonymous email? Is that enough to go on these days? If that is what it comes to, this Assembly is going to descend into farce. It is certainly not the standard I can imagine Mr Hanson would like to be judged on. What if I received an anonymous email asserting something about Mr Hanson and I simply went public on it? Would Mr Hanson feel that that was a suitable basis for me to make an accusation on? I would not do it. I would certainly expect other members of this place to set themselves a higher standard.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video