Page 1475 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 6 April 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the inquiry, to actually interfere in the inquiry? What do the Greens and the government say to that? “Well, look, that’s okay—you know, there’s not much we can do about that; we’re not really going to do anything about that.”
The minister right now, if she wanted to, could actually get to the bottom of those claims. Claims of cover-up have been put directly to her office. She could actually get to the bottom of them if she wanted. I think as the individual concerned said, if they can get access to these documents, the minister can far more easily get access to these documents—unless she does not want to; unless she actually does not want to find out what is going on. Of course, that is far more likely. The minister has shown that from the start, from when she was first approached, and she said she was just there to cover her backside, and she covered her ears because she did not want to know.
It is difficult to imagine another parliament where there is apparently a minority government which would endorse this kind of behaviour. But that is what we are seeing again today with the amendment from the Greens, and no doubt they will be supported by the Labor Party. It is the majority of this parliament, the Labor Party and the Greens, getting together to endorse this litany of cover-up, this consistent attempt to cover up these issues. They say, “Oh well, the inquiry is doing its work.” Well, the inquiry is not doing it work because it cannot, even with the best will in the world. We have got staff being told not to bother. How are they going to get to the bottom of what is happening if the staff are being directed what to say; if we are having memos put out so that government can strategise on its response?
This process has become a whitewash, and it has been intended to be a whitewash since it was watered down in this Assembly by the Labor Party and the Greens. These amendments simply are a continuation of that process. They ignore what is in the motion and Ms Hunter’s remarks ignored what is in the motion. I go back to that in conclusion. I go back to what Ms Hunter completely ignores because it is convenient for her to do so. She ignored the part of the motion that talks about the claims of former and current staff that they are not always made aware of the policies, that they are not always made aware of amendments, that they do not always receive proper training. What would be the problem with getting this information out there? What would be the problem with that? Maybe it would be inconvenient for the government. Maybe it would be embarrassing for the government. That is at the heart of this amendment from Ms Hunter. She continues to try to cover up for the government. We will not be supporting this amendment and Mrs Dunne’s motion should be commended. (Time expired.)
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (4.59): Ms Hunter’s amendment, as Mr Seselja has rightly said, is yet another attempt to have a whitewash of this inquiry. It beggars belief that on the day that the Liberal Party and the Greens voted that we should have a charter of open government, at the very first hurdle the Greens fall. It actually beggars belief. Ms Hunter says, “All of this stuff is up on the webpage.” Yes, it may well be up on the webpage, but what is not on the legislation register is the way in which this information has been promulgated to the staff. People have been assured, for instance, that all of the information has been got across and that people have an understanding.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video