Page 2737 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 6 June 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR HANSON: On the point of order, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: On the point of order, Mr Hanson.
MR HANSON: I consider it a debating point. When this first came to fruition in the parliament, we said that the process that the minister was deliberately following—she is the one that set up this process—was an attempt to cover up the release of the document. I understand that the decision to release the report, the Public Interest Disclosure Act report, is not hers. But my point, and I stand by it, is that the decision she took to instigate a review under the Public Interest Disclosure Act rather than the Inquiries Act was a deliberate attempt to cover up the results. That has been proven and I do not think that that is anything other than a debating point.
MR SPEAKER: Chief Minister, on the point of order.
Ms Gallagher: On the point of order, Mr Hanson gets himself into more trouble. I did not choose the public interest disclosure process. That is not a process that ministers choose. Have a look at the legislation. Now he has alleged that I chose public interest disclosure and subsequently that I covered it up. Those are both incorrect. He has no evidence to support that. It is an imputation against my character and he should correct the record.
MR HANSON: Mr Speaker, on the point of order—
MR SPEAKER: One moment, Mr Hanson. We are having quite a debate now. We are having quite a debate now about how the legislation works. That is not really a point of order. Unless there is something quite specific on the standing orders, I do not want to have a debate about how the Public Interest Disclosure Act works. On the basis of the original point of order, I am just going to take some advice.
Thank you, members. The point of order is upheld. I think that the suggestion of a cover-up is an imputation in this context and so I ask you to withdraw, Mr Hanson.
MR HANSON: Mr Speaker, I will just refer you, on the point of order, to the motion. Subparagraph (e) says:
… the Minister for Health denied, then attempted to cover up, serious complaints of bullying at The Canberra Hospital in 2010;
It is part of the debate for today, Mr Speaker. It may be a debating point, but the minister could have covered this in her initial remarks. But given that this is actually part of the motion, I fail to understand how it could be out of order.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Hanson. I stand corrected, Mr Hanson. I had not seen that part of the motion. On the basis of the additional information given to me, it is in the substantive motion and therefore the point of order is not upheld. You have the floor to continue.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video