Page 5413 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
What Mr Corbell has not dealt with in his response is what happened between the time that Mr Coe put it to him in committee and he took it on notice, saying he would go and check, and the two weeks subsequent. What happened in the two weeks subsequent? We did not hear anything until we asked him again in this place yesterday, two weeks later, and he confirmed the advice.
We have got the RSPCA being slurred publicly through letters to the editor. Mr Coe then brings it to the attention of the minister, offers him the opportunity to provide evidence and puts it to him in the committee. Mr Coe has gone through a number of the quotes. He asks the question about the $150,000 and Mr Corbell confirms. Mr Coe asks him: “Was that cash?” Mr Corbell: “Yes.” Mr Coe: “An extra $150,000?” And then Ms Steward goes on. Mr Corbell’s defence there was: “Well, Ms Steward said it as well.” That is his defence—that Ms Steward also gave misleading information to the committee.
What happens then is Mr Coe pushes the question: “Just confirming, when was the $150,000 additional payment made?” That is what he is asked at the end of this exchange. Mr Corbell then says: “As Ms Steward advises, it was paid last financial year. I am happy to provide an exact date on notice.” He is asked to go away and find the date. He is asked to go away and find the evidence, and he does not do it. He does not even bother to look into it. Then he comes back into this place yesterday and we ask him again: “Do you stand by it?” “That was the basis of my advice, yes.”
So he has not gone away and checked or he has gone away and checked and he has not told the truth. They are the only two scenarios. Either way, he has not done his job. He has not done his job in giving truthful evidence. He did not just do it once. He could have checked when he wrote the letter. He could have checked when he was in committee. He could have checked when he took it on notice and then before he came back to the Assembly and misled again.
This is not accidental. This is negligent or reckless or deliberate. It has to be one of those things. One of those things is true here. If he has done it deliberately, it is disgraceful. If he has not done it deliberately then he has done it not caring about the truth and not wanting to get the answer. It was raised by the RSPCA. The head of the RSPCA said, “We haven’t got that money.” Surely that would cause any reasonable minister to raise the question: “Why would Mr Linke be making this up? Let us get to the bottom of this. Let us get to the bottom of why there is a discrepancy between what the RSPCA says they have received and what I am saying they have been given.”
He was given the opportunity. He was given the opportunity in committee and he gave incorrect information. He misled that committee. He was then given the opportunity to go away and check again. Mr Coe asked him: “Get us the date. Okay, if you paid them, when did you pay them? You go away and check.” “I’ll check that; I’ll take that on notice.” He did not do that. He had two weeks to do it. Then we gave him another opportunity and he gave us another misleading answer in this place.
How low are the standards if we do not censure this minister? How low are the standards when a minister can go time after time after time giving misleading
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video