Page 5367 - Week 14 - Thursday, 19 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It goes on further in paragraph 1.9. Remember that Mr Corbell has asserted that there is not a shred of evidence to back up these findings. It says:
Further documentation was made available to the Committee during the course of the inquiry, either at the Committee’s request or due to the actions of witnesses who wished to place information before the Committee. Some of the information requested by Committee members at hearings, such as the full set on briefings to the Minister for Corrective Services on the progress of the project, was not provided.
I cannot understand why the minister would say that. Finding 1, for instance, says:
Despite specific requests made in writing and repeated in hearings, copies of all relevant Ministerial Briefings were not provided to the Committee.
That sounds to me like a statement of fact, and it is backed up by text in the document. So this concept of not a shred of evidence falters at the first check of just the brief text in the document. Let me go to paragraph 1.10—
Mr Hanson: You sound surprised.
MR SMYTH: Yes, I am. I am shocked. I am shocked that the minister would make this assertion that there was not a shred of evidence. If he reads the document, it is clearly outlined. Paragraph 1.10 says:
The Committee also notes that certain documents that were common to all parties that addressed key issues in the inquiry were only offered to the Committee by certain witnesses.
Again, is the government fair dinkum in backing up the Assembly and allowing it to do its work by providing information or is it not? The answer is that it is not. Just on the basis of that, I think finding 1 is fairly reasonable—that not all the copies of the ministerial briefings were provided to the committee. Let me go to finding 2:
On 4 February 2009 when the Committee undertook a site visit, the AMC was clearly not ready for handover and it was apparent to the Committee Members that considerable work still needed to be done.
That is an interesting thing. Let us see if there are any shreds of evidence that back that assertion up. The committee visited the AMC site. Let me go to paragraph 1.14:
The Committee visited the AMC site on 4 February 2009 and toured the facility. The tour was conducted by senior staff … There was considerable installation and fit-out work taking place.
Obviously, tradesmen and women were still working on the site. If you are still working on the site, the site is not fit to be opened: it is not ready to be open. It continues:
The Committee was informed that some of the work related to the installation of the Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) system …
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video