Page 1474 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 6 April 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
another. We can go through that cover-up. We can talk about why we do not have confidence in this inquiry, either from the perspective of the inquirer’s ability to keep information confidential or from the attempts of the government to corrupt this inquiry and to interfere in the ability of this inquiry to actually find out what is the truth and what is going on at Bimberi.
There is mounting evidence. We have minutes which show the government colluding in relation to evidence given to this inquiry. We have minutes which show that collusion. The Labor Party and the Greens endorsed that. They endorse it again today. They have endorsed that right the way through. We have witness after witness saying that they have been told not to cooperate with the inquiry. So we have got documentary evidence. We have got witness after witness coming and saying: “We were told not to cooperate. We were discouraged, or we were sort of told which way we should go.” We have got the documentary evidence that backs that up and says, “Let’s get together and work out our strategy to make sure they do not get to the bottom of the information at Bimberi.”
Then we have got allegations of a departmental cover-up put directly to the minister’s office and ignored—nothing done with them: “No, you didn’t put it in the proper form.” After the minister’s office told this individual that any concerns in any form would be actioned: “No, not if it’s in a text message.” How serious is the minister, and how serious are the Greens, about public administration when they seem to think that allegations of departmental cover-up can just be ignored, can just be swept under the carpet?
That has been the ongoing way in which this has been handled. And the Greens wonder why it is that the community is losing confidence in them and why, when people have an issue, they no longer go to the Greens. They go to the government initially, which would seem sensible to most people—you have got a concern, you have got a minister in charge, so go to the minister. They go to the minister; she blocks her ears. They go to the Greens; they do nothing. And they go to the opposition, and the opposition raises these issues and tries to get the most open and transparent inquiry possible—a judicial inquiry.
How else do you get to the bottom of whether or not the claim after claim after claim of interference and corruption of this process is true? How else is that going to be found without an inquiry which has all of those powers to get to the bottom of it? Do we really expect that those who have allegations against them that they have been interfering and have come forward are going to come forward of their own free will? This is where we need a proper inquiry.
This amendment from Ms Hunter really confirms the cosiness of this relationship. It is starting to occur very clearly to the community that the Greens are really just there as an extension of the government. They have a different name for their party, but when it comes to the interests of the government and the interests of the Greens, they are in lock-step and they are tied together. That is why the Greens continue to be complicit in this cover-up of information. How are we to have confidence in an inquiry when the information is leaked, when we have mounting evidence, including documentary evidence, that the department and the government have attempted to actually corrupt
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video