Page 200 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 16 February 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
On the 17th she received a reply from the commissioner, declining to comment and offering to speak with the informant. On the 17th Mrs Dunne responded, asking “whether you can confirm that, in your handling of the matter discussed in the conversation that was the subject of my letter of 14 December, you honoured the confidentiality of that conversation”.
On 4 January she received a response from the acting commissioner, assuring Mrs Dunne that the commissioner had acted appropriately. On 11 January Mrs Dunne wrote to the commissioner, who had returned from leave, asking him once again to confirm whether he had treated the conversation confidentially. On 18 January she received a response from the commissioner telling Mrs Dunne that he had met again with the staff member and that the person no longer had concerns about how the matter was handled and he considered the matter closed. In this letter, the commissioner used the staff member’s name three times. This is the evidence, Mr Speaker. On the 20th she received a copy of an email sent by the informant to the commissioner expressing disappointment and concern that the commissioner had disclosed the informant’s name to her.
So with this chain of events, with Mrs Dunne acting in a way that gave every opportunity for a response and getting nothing that disputed the version of events, what did the Attorney-General do? After Mrs Burch had pre-empted any inquiry—after Mrs Burch, with no investigation, no evidence, had said, “It’s all fine; there’s nothing to see here”—the Attorney-General conducted an investigation. Does he outline the nature of that investigation to us today? What was it? He had a chat with Mr Roy and the department told him it was okay.
That is what he has told us about the investigation. It is a joke. It is no wonder Mr Corbell is still out of the chamber, because this is an embarrassment. He is the first law officer and he believes that, with the clear evidence presented by Mrs Dunne, it is reasonable for him to simply ask Mr Roy whether it is true, and his department told him it was okay. How does he know that? How does he know that this is not true? How does he know that Mr Roy has acted appropriately? He has not done a proper investigation. There has been no investigation. Ms Burch let the cat out of the bag when, before there was any investigation, she said, “It’s all fine.” This goes to integrity.
Ms Burch interjecting—
MR SESELJA: Ms Burch tells me I should calm down. That is what we should all do here—we should just be calm. We should be calm about the way this government treats people and we should be calm about the situation at Bimberi that this minister oversees. We should be calm about the absolute kangaroo court, the dodgy investigation that the Attorney-General has launched without providing us with any evidence. But we will not be calm about that, and we will not be calm about a dishonest minister bringing dishonest motions into this place. We will respond to them vigorously and call them for what they are. They are cowardly and they are absolutely without justification.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video