Dr WOODRUFF (Franklin – Leader of the Greens) – Deputy Speaker, it is hard to know where to start. There is so much to choose from. The hypocrisy in this chamber is overwhelming. I will start in the first place with Mr Ferguson, who just spoke on his feet then. To lecture us about such an important matter, referring a minister to Privileges for having made misleading statements, for the investigation by his own peers, members of parliament, about him breaching the Code of Conduct, is incredible. When Mr Ferguson himself was prepared to drag and wanted to refer the former member for Lyons, Rebecca White, to Privileges on the most pathetic, low-level political issue that could ever be concocted, whether or not – by my memory, I do not have the words – she had actually received Brian Mitchell’s support for her standing as a candidate for Lyons.
Honestly, what garbage. I cannot believe you could stand up here, Mr Ferguson, and concoct that on such a serious issue. Let us remind the House why we are here today: we are here today because there is a backflip on this government. They have broken their promise. They are going to spend up to $2 billion of taxpayers money over the next decade. That is a fact that the TPC has put on paper, the likely cost, and it is backed up by many independent experts.
The reason we are here today is because minister Abetz, has been dishonest with Tasmanians and pretending that there is this thing called ‘legal advice’, which tells them that the TPC has actually done something which is inaccurate, is a corrupted process. That is essentially the argument that the government, through Mr Abetz, has now been perpetuating for the last couple of weeks. That is false and the reason it is false is because there was not legal advice that the government received that went – that MinterEllison letter was not legal advice.
Mr Ferguson – Well, what is it?
Dr WOODRUFF – That MinterEllison letter was a document prepared between some lawyers who are from an international firm called MinterEllison and it was prepared with –
Mr Abetz – It was medical advice.
Mr Ferguson – It was a document. From a lawyer.
DEPUTY SPEAKER – Members will cease talking over the top of one another.
Mr Ellis – And what does that firm do? What does it do?
DEPUTY SPEAKER – Minister Ellis.
Dr WOODRUFF – I did get very much pulled into place on this.
DEPUTY SPEAKER – I have just pulled them into place as well, Dr Woodruff.
Dr WOODRUFF – Thank you very much, because I would really like people to understand what is happening here. The government, the MPDC and members of the senior public service, the head of the public service, the secretary of the public service, the deputy secretary of the public service, they sat around and they had a backwards and forwards – tracked changes – with a submission that was made to the Tasmanian Planning Commission on behalf of the MPDC, which is an arm of government. That is the document that has been waved around for Tasmanians as the reason that we have to have special legislation come to this place, which is, in Tasmania’s history, the most outrageous, the most corrupted process ever. It will utterly cut Tasmanians out of having a proper say in the consultation. It is all designed to smear the Tasmanian Planning Commission and make it absolutely impossible that people could have any confidence in the report that they are in the process of delivering. A report, mind you, that this government is doing everything possible it can, to make sure Tasmanians do not have their say through public hearings and through that process.
What we heard from DPAC staff in our briefing yesterday was that there is no legal advice. There has never been any legal advice. The document that was presented by minister Abetz where he was dishonest and misleading to Tasmanians on ABC Radio to Leon Compton, on Stateline, on numerous occasions in this House, was not legal advice. It was a representation.
This is the point, Dr Broad: the difference is that it is not impartial. It is not an objective legal opinion. It is something that is been cooked up between the legal body, a bunch of lawyers and their clients; the head of the public service; the deputy head of the public service; the Macquarie Point Development Corporation who are acting for the government. That is the difference. There is nothing impartial about this, absolutely nothing. What I want to understand is why are Labor running a protection racket for the Liberals on this matter? Why?
Dr Broad – It is good that you do not listen. You never listen. You never listen to an argument.
Dr WOODRUFF – I will tell you what you were not being honest about: it is the standard that you think is sufficient to refer a member of this House to Privileges.
Dr Broad – We did; Barnett and Brooks.
Dr WOODRUFF – You are acting as though we are judge and jury of Mr Abetz.
DEPUTY SPEAKER – Dr Woodruff, please direct your remarks through the chair so that you are not inciting interjections.
Dr WOODRUFF – Dr Broad is trying to make a case that we are acting as judge and jury for the minister, Mr Abetz. We made a strong argument for why this House should refer Mr Abetz to Privileges to sit in front of his peers, of whom Dr Broad, I understand, would be one –
Dr Broad – No, I am not on it.
Dr WOODRUFF – Okay, well, there are several members of Labor who will be sitting on the privileges committee. The privileges committee, consisting of peers of Mr Abetz, will make a decision about whether the ministerial code of conduct has been breached. We argue very strongly that it has. We argue it has to stand for something. If you are looking at the ministerial code of conduct and the members’ code of conduct – I will start with the ministerial code of conduct. It says:
Ministers must not deliberately make statements that mislead Parliament or the public and in line with Parliamentary practice are obliged to correct the record in a manner that is appropriate to the circumstances, as soon as possible after any incorrect statement is made.
It is recognised that a mistake or referring to incorrect information does not, in and of itself, constitute the offence of misleading Parliament as long as it is corrected as soon as possible once the error is identified.(ok)
The deputy leader of the Greens wrote to Mr Abetz and gave him plenty of time. He did not have to do it by Question Time yesterday. He could have done it this morning or in the adjournment last night. As a minister, there were many opportunities before him in this place to retract his words, which are untrue.
It is not true that there is legal advice. We cannot say it more plainly. We asked the question in the briefing and the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPAC) staff told us it was not legal advice. What was given to the planning commission was legal representation. I asked the staff member whether there was legal advice and he told us, ‘Yes, there is’, and I said, ‘Well, we would like to see a copy, please.’ What has been provided to the Tasmanian Planning Commission as a representation of this government through the Macquarie Point Development Corporation, what has been held up to Tasmanians as the reason to throw out the planning process in train and make it the responsibility of public servants to go through this charade of developing a planning permit and planning conditions that is then going to come to us as special legislation, has all hung on this argument that Mr Abetz has been misleading Tasmanians about. There never was legal advice.
A member – Of course, there was.
Dr WOODRUFF – Well, we want to see it, because it is not the letter that has been made public. That is legal representation, that is a submission to the planning commission. That has backwards and forwards track-changes in it. It had the input of state servants, it had the input of the government, on behalf of the government, and that is exactly the point. Mr Abetz does not like to hear the fact that it was not impartial legal advice, but that is exactly the point we are making. It cannot be impartial if it is being prepared, in part, with the client. That is not impartial. Representation is partial by its very nature. There is a difference in law. Impartial legal advice is a lawyer giving advice to the client without any influence. Without any influence – that is the difference. That is the point we are trying to make.
The Macquarie Point Development Corporation said, as Mr Abetz tried to say, that it was not legal opinion. Why should we believe them? They are acting for the government in this matter. It is irrelevant what the Macquarie Point Development Corporation says. Here we have the Macquarie Point Development Corporation saying it has received legal advice, but its own board has had a hand in writing it.
We need Tasmanians to understand what is going on here. The government is smearing the Tasmanian Planning Commission and the reputations of the people working right now on the process that parliament ordered them to start. They have been doing that work in good faith and this government is smearing their reputations –
A member – You’re smearing public servants and others.
Mr Abetz – And me.
Dr WOODRUFF – smearing those people who are doing their work – the former assistant solicitor‑general of Tasmania, the former secretary of Treasury, people who know what they are doing. They know how to follow the order of parliament and that is what they are doing.
We need this to be called out for what it is. It has been cooked up as a pretence for why we need special legislation by government, on behalf of the minister, and whoever else was involved in the conversation. We are not privy to the emails.
It is disappointing that Labor is running a protection racket for this when they were more than happy in September the year before last to try to refer Guy Barnett to Privileges over a matter their own media release described as fudging Marinus costs. Fudging Marinus costs is a serious matter that should be investigated, and this is a serious matter that should be investigated. We are not standing here as judge and jury on this. All we are saying is that Mr Abetz should be referred to Privileges. What is the standard in this place if the Labor Party and people like Mr Ferguson, who is happy to refer people to the privileges committee for utterly political issues, things to do with the Labor Party’s internal negotiations and discussions, are not prepared to support an investigation by Mr Abetz’s peers of what we believe are patently dishonest and misleading statements.
We will continue to speak for Tasmanians on this. People know that what is happening is shonky. They understand that the government is trying to push through a corrupted process. They know this special legislation is all about making sure Tasmanians and this parliament do not see the final planning commission report. The reason this is going on is to make sure members of the Legislative Council, in particular, but all of us and all Tasmanians do not see the final report. What do you have to be afraid of? This is the process the government established; this is the process the parliament has ordered to go ahead.
Mr Abetz – How is this relevant?
Dr WOODRUFF – It is relevant because that is why you are misleading Tasmanians with your statements. You are trying to present it as though there is something legal, some truth in the argument you presented that there is a problem with the planning commission’s process. You are wrong. It is deceitful, it is misleading and there is no basis for that. We understand that this has to be properly investigated and we will keep fighting for the truth because Tasmanians are sickened at the idea of building a stadium that will hold us in debt. Former MLCs Ivan Dean and Greg Hall have calculated that it will cost $11 million for a game to be played at the stadium if it is built in Hobart. That means $76,000 a year of debt for every man, woman and child in Tasmania. It is critical that we continue to speak the truth about what is going on here.
The government has an addiction to building a stadium and is pretending there is something wrong with the process it set up because it is afraid of the outcome. They know that the POSS process, when it is delivered, will be done with some thoroughness and that is exactly what they are trying to avoid. Those on the government benches do not want to hear and do not want MLCs to hear and feel the pressure from their communities when the full and unadulterated truth of what the impact of the stadium and the cost to this state will be is known.
We know that the federal Liberal Party was thinking of trying to pull the $240 million commitment from the federal government to the stadium. They knew what a stinker this stadium is in northern Tasmania. Federal candidates who were standing in the recent election were desperately trying to hold onto their seats. They were trying to get that removed from the federal Liberal Party’s policy platform. They were not successful. History will show, amongst many other reasons, that the stadium had an impact on the vote that we saw in Tasmania, the swing to the Labor Party and the big increase for the Greens in the Senate. History will show this. It is the Liberals who suffered. There were many reasons for that, but there is no doubt that the stadium was part of it.
We listen to people in Tasmania. We are taking on board their concerns. We know the people in Launceston want to have York Park as the home of football. We have heard Mr Garland’s impassioned speeches about people in Braddon, people in his electorate. We understand that the people of Yolla are outraged at the idea that this government is going to spend up to $2 billion over the next decade and will put a stadium in a place which they cannot reach, even if they wanted to. How could people in Yolla ever afford or be able to come down and find accommodation to be at a game?
Mr ABETZ – Point of order.
The SPEAKER – I will hear the point of order.
Mr ABETZ – I would like to know how the capacity of people from Yolla getting to the stadium is in any way, shape, or form relevant to a motion referring me to the Privileges committee.
The SPEAKER – You may call for a point of order on relevance. I will remind the member that standing order 142 requires the content to be relevant to the motion before the House. The motion before the House is the referral to the committee, so I will bring the member to that.
Dr WOODRUFF – Thank you, honourable Speaker. I am delighted to return to the issue of why minister Eric Abetz needs to go to the Privileges committee. It is because he has been misleading Tasmanians. The reason he is misleading is because he is trying to hide the truth. He and his government are desperately doing everything they can to make sure that the POSS process is not completed, and to make sure that we do not have the final TPC report.
That is why we are going through this this fast‑tracked, corrupted process, the special legislation. Government staff agencies are being pulled into day‑long workshops to sit around in a room to try to cook up permit conditions and try to hastily scratch together some semblance of planning order from people who are not proper planners. We are expected to have dished up to us legislation that is going to rush through this stadium in unholy order. The reason behind it is that they are afraid of the truth. They know the majority of Tasmanians do not stand with them. They know that people are outraged.
Time expired.
