Page 1398 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 13 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
That is what has occurred here. That is the offence. And it is a very serious offence, Madam Speaker. It is not trivial. In particular, with regard to this committee it is not trivial. We have now seen this legislation fall over. This is a key piece of government legislation, and it has been pulled. And a large reason, a large part of why that legislation has been pulled, is the shambolic committee process that was set up. That was identified by all of the people that made submissions to this committee—that it was a sham.
For this committee inquiry to have been inappropriately, essentially, leaked—for information relating to the proceedings in private session of the committee to have been peddled to the minister—brings into further disrepute this particular committee, the whole process around this piece of legislation and the committee process more generally. Many people submitted to this committee, including community councils. The community councils have now had any sense of trust in the committee process completely abused. They have already said that they did not have time to submit. They have been very critical of the committee process. And now they are aware that this committee has not been acting in accordance with the standing orders—or a member of it has not. There has been a loss of trust by large sections of the community in this particular committee, and therefore a breach in the whole committee process. Knowing that there are members of committees in this place who are prepared to peddle information to ministers about highly sensitive committees has breached the community’s trust.
The Chief Minister stands up here in this place and is critical of the two-and-two committee process. That is a problem. The Clerk has provided advice that said that it is not in accordance with the Latimer House principles. But that is not the point. The point is that whether you have got a committee with three members or whether you have got one with four members, those members are not there to divulge confidential information, to peddle it to ministers so that ministers know what is going on in that committee—and God knows whatever undue influence they are having.
We probably all understand what has happened here, because we were in the Assembly last week when we saw this unfold. Mr Coe has made the case. When Mr Corbell stood up in this place and talked about a review of the minutes, and talked in some detail about the opposition’s voting patterns on those minutes, it is quite clear that he had an intimate knowledge of what was going on in the private meetings of the committee, in contravention of the standing orders. I will say it again: “unauthorised disclosure of … any proceedings in private session of … a committee or any report of such proceedings”.
We know that he had this, and we know that he got caught cold, absolutely, because when he was questioned about it in an interjection from Mr Smyth, he said, “They are available online,” to try and cover his tracks. And we know that they were not. That then led to the action that we had last week against the minister as a vote of no confidence. It was during that motion that we actually had the gotcha moment, because there was no defence of the actual crime. The minister is experienced, and he knows that he should not have had access to that information. He continued to try and come up with a concocted story. The next excuse was, “I got it from Mr Gentleman’s
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video