Page 1079 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 6 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
That information was not published and Mr Gentleman did not say that. So at the time that Mr Corbell made those remarks, it was not in the public domain. It was not in the public domain. I can tell you exactly what Mr Gentleman said in his speech immediately prior to Mr Corbell. Mr Gentleman said, “As you will see in the minutes tabled, Madam Speaker, the committee was presented with a report by the chair. The report was looked into but when the final motion was put for the report to be adopted, the motion was lost.”
At no point in tabled documents or in the Assembly was there any information—
Mr Hanson interjecting—
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Hanson!
MR COE: about the opposition supporting every one of the paragraphs as Mr Corbell said. So how did he know that information? How did Minister Corbell know that two members of the committee voted in favour of every one of those motions? It is all very well for the Chief Minister to go and try and shore up the situation but the fact is that at the time of Mr Corbell making these statements it should not have been known to him. There are several issues here.
Mr Hanson interjecting—
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Hanson!
MR COE: Was he given leaked emails? Was he given leaked minutes? Was it appropriate, even if he was briefed on this information, for him to even comment on this even if it had been leaked to him? But one way or another it is clear that information has gone from the committee to Mr Corbell. How else did he know about every one of the paragraphs one by one? In actual fact, when Mr Corbell came back into the chamber, he did not shy away from this fact. When he came back a couple of hours later, he said:
I indicated I understood that the opposition members had not voted against the chair’s draft report in the committee’s clause by clause—
He made reference to it again: “clause by clause”. No information about the clause by clause discussion of the committee had been privy to this Assembly or to Mr Corbell.
I am very curious to find out how it is that Mr Corbell knew that the opposition members “supported each and every one of the paragraphs proposed by Mr Gentleman in his draft chair’s report”. That is what he said—“each and every one”. That was not said by Mr Gentleman. That was not in the public domain. That is not in this document. It is not anywhere else. It was said subsequent to that. Mr Corbell said it first, and that is a worry. That is a worry. Mr Corbell is in effect the person who is delivering the committee report. How is that so? How is it so when he was not on the committee?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video