Parliamentary Committees

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE ATKINSON/ASHBOURNE/CLARKE AFFAIR

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (20:33): I move:

That the minutes of evidence, documents and submissions presented to the select committee be tabled forthwith.

This motion seeks to have the minutes of evidence, documents and submissions presented to the Select Committee on the Atkinson/Ashbourne/Clarke Affair tabled in this place. The motion is that they be tabled forthwith. However, as a result of discussions that have occurred today, I agree that there should not be a vote on this motion today.

I admit that notice of the motion was given only yesterday, and the Hon. Russell Wortley has indicated to me that the Labor caucus has not yet discussed the issue and that he does not have a party position on it. I understand that, the tradition of this council being that appropriate notice be given.

However, I should just say briefly, because a number of members of the current chamber were not members of the Legislative Council at the time of the establishment of the Atkinson/Ashbourne/Clarke select committee, that the committee was established on 7 July 2005. It is unnecessary to go into the background, nor is it relevant to the current issue. However, when the second session of the 51^st parliament was prorogued on 14 August this year, the select committee terminated and a subsequent motion to re-establish the select committee was not carried in the Legislative Council; and, certainly, I respect that decision of the council. Accordingly, we are not seeking to re-establish the select committee.

I should indicate that the select committee heard very extensive evidence over a considerable period of time and collected much documentary evidence. Some of the material has already been tabled and members have access to it; however, all the material that was collected at the select committee has not yet been tabled. This comprehensive motion seeks to have included all the material that was available. I think it is worth noting that a draft report was prepared and would have been supported by a minority of the select committee, namely, the then chair, the Hon. Russell Wortley (who is said to be the author of that) and the Hon. Bernard Finnigan, the other Labor member.

That report reached certain conclusions which are very favourable to the government, and it was leaked, in consequence of which The Advertiser of 24 July 2007 published an item which reported the findings of that report. The headline 'Minister clear in Atkinson case' gives the general tone of that particular report. The situation is that the one conclusion of the select committee that has received some publicity in the community is that which was a partisan position put by the then chair of the committee.

Presently the material which was collected by the select committee is not available to members or to the parliament generally. It is, as it were, sitting out there in the ether. For example, a very comprehensive summary of the evidence of the select committee was prepared by the research officer. That summary will be very helpful to members and anyone else in the future who wish to have reference to the subject matter of that committee. It is for those reasons that we seek, as it were, to have this issue drawn to a close.

As I mentioned, we are not seeking to resuscitate the select committee. That was comprehensively decided upon by the council, and we respect that decision. However, we do believe that all loose ends in relation to this affair should be tied. For those reasons, I will be seeking the support of the council to the motion. As I indicated at the outset, as a result of representations made by the Hon. Russell Wortley and, I think, supported by the minister, and as a result of discussions with other members, I will not, as previously advised, be seeking a vote on this matter this evening.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (20:40): I indicate my support for the Hon. Rob Lawson's motion. I am aware that the committee did not meet for some 14 months, and that was the reason for my voting against its re-establishment. I think that, if the committee could not get its act together (so to speak), there is little point in re-establishing it simply for the issue to drag on with no conclusion in the foreseeable future.

I understand that the chairman presented a report and there was no dissenting report. I do not know why other members of the committee did not simply submit a minority report to be included that stated their views. I am aware that the matter has already been dealt with in the courts and has been very thoroughly canvassed in the media. However, I agree that it is important to table minutes, evidence, documents and submissions that were presented to the committee and that they be placed on the public record. It is for that reason that I support the motion.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.