Page 1071 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 6 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
When this minister tried to cover up the fact that he had been privy to confidential knowledge, confidential information, and minutes of this committee, what did he do? When asked, “Where did you get that information?” his response was, “It’s online. It’s available online to everybody.” That was not true. That was a deliberate mislead and that does not conform to the ministerial code of conduct that ministers must act honestly at all times and be truthful in their statements, and he was not.
The ministerial code of conduct refers to the members’ code of conduct. The members’ code of conduct equally makes it very clear that members have got to behave honestly in their dealings. It is quite clear, in the case that I have outlined, that this minister has not.
This is a test of leadership. This is a test of leadership for the Chief Minister. Is it the standard that she is going to accept of her ministers that they can come into this place and have access to confidential information that they should not have, be caught out, mislead this place about it and then essentially get away with it? “No, no mislead here. I will accept that as a standard of behaviour.” We hear a lot about open, accountable and responsible government from Katy Gallagher. This is a real test for the Chief Minister, whether she has got the leadership to actually say, “No, that does not meet the standard of the sort of minister that I want in my government.”
I would also say it is a test for the Greens member. I have had some discussions with the Greens member. The case is pretty self-evident. It is a decision as to what standards will Shane Rattenbury hold this government to. Is he going to let this government and this minister just get away with anything as long as he gets what he wants? We know that he wants this piece of legislation. We know that he wants this rammed through. We know that he wants this regardless of the cost and regardless of the fact that his own members, like Caroline Le Couteur and others, are saying, “Don’t do this.” Shane Rattenbury wants to ram this through. Perhaps the last thing that he wants is further heat around this issue. But is he going to stand up for honesty, is he going to stand up for integrity, or is he just going to stand up for what he wants, which is to get this legislation through to fast-track light rail?
The whole thing stinks. The point is that this is a controversial piece of government legislation that this committee is inquiring into. It has been a rushed committee inquiry. It has been a sham committee inquiry. We know that because the vast bulk of people who put in submissions or appeared before the inquiry have told us so.
Mr Coe: Every single one.
MR HANSON: Every single one, Mr Coe tells me. Every single person said, “We didn’t have time. It’s a sham committee. What’s happening here is just trying to tick the box, give the appearance that there is some consultation happening when we know that that is not happening.” It is trying to give an impression.
Now a community that is having this imposed on them is going to see what is a real corruption of the process whereby it certainly appears that the minister has intimate knowledge of what is going on in that committee. Someone in that committee is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video