You are here
Mr Brooks - Standards of Ministerial Behaviour
Ms O'CONNOR question to PREMIER, Mr HODGMAN.
Earlier when we asked what standard of ministerial behaviour would be low
enough for you to act decisively, desperately flailing about, you went
back to the turn of the century and a former Labor member who was charged
and hauled before the court. Is that a pointer to your expected standard
of behaviour? Will Mr Brooks have to face criminal charges for you to
rule out inviting him back into your Cabinet?
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question. It was not that long
ago and the standard we are talking about is what occurred within the time
that both of us had been in this place. It was a most undesirable
circumstance where Bryan Green conducted himself in a way that was serious
enough to be considered a breach of the Criminal Code that would require
him to submit to two trials, which I must point out did not return a
verdict. They were inconclusive. Notwithstanding all of that, the former
member for Braddon, Mr Green, was able to stay in this parliament. He did
not resign. It was not expected of him by the Labor Party, and nor did it
worry you when you were able to get yourself into government with the
Labor Party and sit alongside him at the Cabinet table.
Ms O'CONNOR - Madam Speaker, point of order, on relevance. The Premier is
desperately flailing about. Could he confirm that it would take criminal
charges against Mr Brooks for him not to be considered for Cabinet in the
Madam SPEAKER - That is another example of the weakness of standing order
45. I ask the Premier to proceed.
Mr HODGMAN - Thank you, Madam Speaker. I point to the fact that the
Integrity Commission has found in this instance that there was no material
conflict or material advantage gained.
Ms O'Connor - Semantics. Weasel words.
Mr HODGMAN - Semantics? This is unbelievable hypocrisy and carelessness
to the extreme. These are the findings of the Integrity Commission. No
advantage was obtained by Mr Brooks, no conflict, no breach of the code.
This is very different to what Mr Green went through, that standard that
With respect to the other matters contained within the report, as I very
clearly said that they do not meet my expectations. They do not afford Mr
Brooks the opportunity now, nor has it afforded him the opportunity to be
a member of the Cabinet.
As to any further action that is taken with respect to this matter, it
would be for independent authorities or any other members to determine
what they wish to do. We are dealing here with the determination and the
conclusion from the Integrity Commission, no less, which has been
extraordinarily been dismissed by the member who asked the question as
some sort of irrelevancy. Opposition members have suggested that we
interfere in the business of the Integrity Commission. The member for
Clark is now questioning the integrity of the Commission itself and its
findings clearly by calling into question those findings.
Ms O'CONNOR - Madam Speaker, point of order. I ask the Premier to
withdraw that false and misleading statement.
Madam SPEAKER - Premier, the member for Clark has taken offence at your
accusation. I ask that you respectfully withdraw it.
Mr HODGMAN - Madam Speaker, I withdraw it, but I consider it entirely
unacceptable for the member who objects to assert that the Government
interfered in the timing of the tabling of the report. The member said
that publicly and it was reported. It is entirely untrue and questions
the integrity of the Integrity Commission. It is an integrity commission
that was established under a former Labor government and has been
I recall former premier David Bartlett saying that he feared a time when
the Integrity Commission would be used for political purposes. The former
premier would be looking with disfavour on what is occurring now because
that is exactly what has happened. We have had a direct plea from the
Integrity Commission. In their annual report they said that the spurious
and publicly made statements about the operations of the commission -
indeed, references to it - are undermining its independence, politicising
the process and deliberately damaging reputations.
We know that is all you are interested in. You want to damage people's
reputations. If that means you have to call into question the operation
of the Integrity Commission, then you will do that.
Members of the Labor Party have quite willingly declared that they are
referring a matter to the Integrity Commission. Even though the Integrity
Commission regrets that sort of conduct, I am sure it will continue. They
are the depths the Labor Party have stooped to; they ignore requests of
the Integrity Commission and, as former premier Bartlett said, use it for
We respect the findings of the Integrity Commission. We will respond to
these matters appropriately as we have done.