Page 94 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 9 February 2010

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video


I need to draw members’ attention to the evidence. The evidence before us in the committee was that there was in fact one factory acceptance test. There were two scheduled factory acceptance tests. The first one did not take place. The first factory acceptance test did not take place. I am happy to share with the minister, with the agreement of the committee, the evidence that was provided to the committee that the first factory acceptance test—this evidence was provided by the government’s own contractor—did not take place.

When the government’s own contractors discussed whether they needed to have subsequent factory acceptance tests, it was agreed that they should not, even though there were concerns, because they were concerned about the time frames. So there we are. That is the first and most obvious error made by the government. On the advice of its own employees, its own contractors, the first factory acceptance test did not take place. There was only one factory acceptance test. The minister might like to consider his response to that finding. He might also like to consider his response to other findings.

Mr Corbell: Tell us about findings 18 and 22, Vicki.

MRS DUNNE: Finding 22 is the one that gets under Mr Corbell’s skin. Finding 22 says:

While there were significant delays in installing the AMC security system not all the delays to the commencement of the AMC were due to the security system as the Attorney-General has contended.

The Attorney-General comes in here today and says this. He has quoted, and it is obvious that this is a selective quote from page 5 of his documents, because there is an ellipsis at the beginning. If the minister thinks that he has got a knock-down, drag-out argument to prove that we were wrong, I ask, first, that the attorney table the entirety of that advice for the benefit of members and, secondly, if the attorney has had this information since July 2009, say why it is coming to light only today.

During the time when the Assembly committee was deliberating on this matter, this minister had information that was relevant to the process—was absolutely relevant to the process. Remember that the first finding was that not all the documents that the committee desired or needed were forthcoming. The minister himself took exception to that today and said, “We bent over backwards.” In fact, there were a number of occasions when the committee, in hearings and followed up by the committee secretary, asked for documents that did not come. By the minister’s own admission here today, he has what he claims is an absolutely lay-down misere that shows that the committee got it wrong from go to whoa and he has been sitting on it since July last year. The minister had that, by his own admission, since July last year.

Mr Corbell: I wasn’t the responsible minister in July last year.

Mr Seselja: Are you blaming your mate Hargreaves?

MRS DUNNE: He is out there blaming you, Mr Hargreaves. I ask you, Mr Assistant Speaker, why the government did not bring that matter to the attention of the


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video