Page 1059 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 May 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
There are many things about this process which are unclear. I understand, and we do note, that previous members of the committee and some current members of the committee have affiliations with the CFMEU, who are the beneficiaries of the Tradies club. Those issues were highlighted. I have always had the concern that when you say, “I’ve got a conflict of interest,” when you speak it, you have to also be careful that you do not act on your conflict and then say, “Well, I’ve already talked about it, so I’m fine.” There are clear issues of concern, especially with people who at the last minute could not bring themselves to agree to the committee report, which is as even-handed as we could possibly make it. I fear that it is because of their affiliations with those unions.
MS CODY (Murrumbidgee) (11.10): I would like to begin by thanking all of the witnesses that spoke to us, at the committee’s request. Many of them had retired or moved on from the public service and were relying, as Mrs Dunne has already noted, on memories that were eight years old. I do not know about you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but I often cannot remember what I had for breakfast yesterday, let alone what I did eight years ago, and what my exact signature on a piece of paper meant. Nevertheless, we talked to those witnesses; they were put forward and they were asked to provide their recollection of things that had happened eight or more years ago.
We listened to what they had to say. Yes, there were some differences of opinion and there was some information that was not exactly as each member had put it. The transcripts reflected that very clearly. Unfortunately, for me, I do not believe that the report reflected that. The initial report, when it came to it, as Mrs Dunne has already spoken about, did not reflect the evidence that was provided in the transcript. I went over the transcripts again and again, to see whether maybe I was misreading them, but I do not feel that I did. So, yes, I made it clear that I did not agree with the original report in any way, shape or form.
Thanks to the work that was done, mainly by Ms Cheyne but also by Mrs Dunne—I will praise her here; not that she ever praises us in PAC, but I will do so—they worked tirelessly together to produce a report that members of the committee, on the whole, would feel comfortable with. I repeat: on the whole.
When we started down this path of agreeing to the PAC report—I note, Mr Assistant Speaker, that you were at some of the very early hearings—I did make my feelings known in those hearings, in that some of what was discussed by members of the committee was not even part of the Auditor-General’s report. When I read the report that has been tabled today, it reflects some of those conversations. It reflects information that had nothing to do with either the sale of block 30 or the Auditor-General’s inquiry into the sale of block 30, yet there is a very big statement made in this report that has been tabled today. I could not stand by that information. I did not stand by it in the hearing, I did not stand by it in the deliberations and I will not stand by it today.
On another point, I would like to thank Mrs Dunne for yet again raising in this chamber my affiliation with unions. I am a proud member of three unions in this
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video