Page 219 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 28 November 2012

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

he would not do that. What we see is that it perhaps depends on who is the author of the amendment as opposed to when it is circulated.

There are a number of points in the minister’s amendment that do not meet the requirement that I have in my motion. You will notice that at point 1(h) this will be publicly released. I ask the question: when will it be publicly released? I have asked for it to be seven days after it has been produced. I am referring to the review and the final report. But we may never get those.

Timing is very important in this place because what you may find is that we do not see those for months. The report might come in and the minister will sit on it. Maybe the minister is going to sit on it till she has got her government response to it, although the government is doing it, so we simply do not know, and that is why the timings are important, so that the community knows what is going on, and it does not afford this government the ability to cover up.

I say this because it is clear that that is the record of this minister and that is the record of this government. Although Mr Rattenbury talks about the independence of the public service, let me say that I have been greatly troubled, and the community has been greatly troubled, by the fact that a friend of the minister doctored health information. A senior executive at the Canberra Hospital who is a close friend of the minister is doctoring information. She said that she was doing it for the political imperatives. We know from the Auditor-General’s view that others were also—

Ms Gallagher: Point of order, Mr Assistant Speaker.

MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Gentleman): Point of order, Chief Minister.

Ms Gallagher: The official that Mr Hanson makes comment on did not say that, just for the record.

Mr Seselja: On the point of order, Mr Assistant Speaker, it is not up to the Chief Minister to use points of order frivolously as debating points. That was a debating point. It is unreasonable to get up there. If she does not like what is being said, there are mechanisms to do that, not to stand up and interrupt Mr Hanson when he is speaking.

MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Seselja. Mr Hanson, continue.

MR HANSON: Yes, clearly that is a debating point. I do not know if we will get to it in time. I have asked Mr Smyth to bring up the Auditor-General’s report. Clearly, there is a point in there, I think page 53 from memory, where Kate Jackson does say that the political imperative at a number of levels, including from the minister’s office, was part of the reason that she was doctoring information. Hopefully, we will get the quote.

The Auditor-General also found that it is highly likely others were involved. I think in that case we have seen the previous problem with obstetrics where the minister did everything in her power to cover up what had happened. We have seen the widespread

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