Peg Putt
“The dramatic new revelations about the Premier’s role interfering in the Justice portfolio and directing Mr Kons to appoint Simon Cooper against Mr Kons’ wishes must be investigated by a Commission of Inquiry,” Ms Putt said. “We are concerned that possible breaches of the Constitution Act 1934, the Criminal Code Act 1924 and the Archives Act 1983 need to be explored.” “The picture that is painted is of routine interference by the Premier in the Justice portfolio, and that he directed the then Attorney General Mr Kons to make a Magisterial appointment for reasons that seem not to be connected so much to his fitness for the job, but for Mr Lennon’s political purposes.” “Ms Hornsey’s later intervention also must be scrutinised, as yet again a culture of interference in appointments for purposes of political payback seems to have been in operation, although in contradiction to the Premier.”
Commission of Inquiry Now Imperative
Peg Putt MP
Greens Opposition Leader
Wednesday, 16 April 2008
www.tas.greens.org.au
The Tasmanian Greens today said that explosive new information regarding the ‘Shreddergate’ affair makes a Commission of Inquiry imperative.
Greens MP Kim Booth had been contacted by the source of the shredded document that he tabled in Parliament last week, requesting that his identity be revealed and a statement he had written be released, which the Greens have now done after Mr Booth received legal advice that he should simply release the statement as received. The only alteration is to black out the personal email address of the source, at his request.
Greens Opposition Leader Peg Putt MP said that the new allegation of the Premier continually interfering in the Justice portfolio, and the new allegation that the Premier had originally insisted on Mr Cooper being made a Magistrate against Mr Kons’ wishes ‘in order to remove him from the RPDC’ were very serious, and amplified the circumstances in which the then Secretary of DPAC intervened with Mr Kons, who then abandoned the appointment.
The Greens believe that this train of events also indicate that the former DPAC head may indeed have been acting without the authority of the Premier, raising the question not only of potentially exceeding her authority but of whether a personal vendetta was in play due to Mr Cooper’s exposure of her role in intervening to prevent a written communication to Gunns from the RPDC outlining the critical deficiency of their pulp mill IIS.
The email reveals:
· Nigel Burch, previous advisor to former Deputy Premier Steve Kons, is the source;
· He made a formal statement to police last year detailing events surrounding the appointment of a Magistrate in August 2007, after having divulged the events to the DPP who strongly recommended making a police statement. Mr Burch did this because he believed a crime had been committed;
· Mr Burch’s recollection of events adds another twist to what has been publicly known thus far, that is that the Premier had been routinely interfering in the Justice portfolio and had directed that Mr Cooper be appointed a Magistrate, allegedly ‘in order to remove him from the RPDC’;
· Mr Burch cites, as evidence of Mr Kons’ discomfit with making this appointment, that he advised Mr Kons to amend the ‘Cabinet Noting of Magistrate Appointment’ document to distance himself from the recommendation. A look at the reassembled document confirms this, as the then Attorney General has added in his own hand the words “on advice the department has provided to you”, which do distance him from the recommendation to some degree;
· Mr Burch divulges that Mr Kons himself shredded the signed document noting the intended appointment of Mr Cooper, and did so immediately after taking a call Mr Burch believed was from Linda Hornsey, then Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPAC). (Mr Kons confirmed in Parliament last week that he did talk to Ms Hornsey after signing the document and before it was destroyed. [see Hansard excerpt below]);
· Mr Burch believed that a crime had been committed in prevailing on Mr Kons to change his mind after he had signed the ‘Cabinet noting’ document, and therefore ‘took action to preserve potential evidence’;
· Mr Burch believed in 2007 that he was acting to protect Mr Kons from any later allegation of wrongdoing. This all occurred seven months before Mr Burch’s controversial dismissal and before the events of last week that saw Mr Kons mislead Parliament;
· The police have been aware of the existence of the ‘shredded document that evidenced the facts of the Simon Cooper matter’ since last year. Mr Burch understands that the DPP and the then Police Commissioner had decided to defer consideration of what action to take until after the Bryan Green trial was over;
· Mr Burch came forward to Mr Booth with the shredded document(s) after the government denounced as a ‘fantasy’ the Mercury report of 5th April 2008 that broke the story of the abandoned appointment. This contact was made for the purpose of Mr Booth tabling the document in Parliament;
· Mr Burch believed that it was not a Cabinet document, having been shredded and discarded by Mr Kons and a completely different document actually presented to Cabinet;
· Mr Burch believed his higher duty was to secure the evidence of what he believed to be a crime, which was the principle reason that he retrieved the document;
· Mr Burch believed at the time he retrieved the document that neither he nor Mr Kons had done wrong, and ‘that the document could protect the Attorney General from any allegation of wrongdoing by evidencing that he had acted under direction’.
“The source of the shredded document has made the brave decision to have his identity revealed and has asked me to do so by giving his emailed statement to me to the media,” Mr Booth said.
“Mr Nigel Burch is the source. His additional statement that he has requested that I release today also reveals that he reported the events around the decision to appoint a Magistrate to the police last year because he believed that a criminal event had taken place, and the police were made aware of the shredded document and its existence at that time.”
“This chronology makes clear that the magistrate appointment scandal is not something that Mr Burch only acted upon after he had been dismissed, and any attempt to claim this would be in contradiction of the facts.”
“Mr Burch only came to me with the shreddings after the government and Mr Kons himself had dismissed the whole episode of the abandoned appointment of Mr Cooper as a ‘fantasy’, and Mr Burch did this because he wanted the truth to come out through my tabling the document in Parliament.”
“This is consistent with Mr Burch now providing further information about the goings on at the time,” Mr Booth said.
“The dramatic new revelations about the Premier’s role interfering in the Justice portfolio and directing Mr Kons to appoint Simon Cooper against Mr Kons’ wishes must be investigated by a Commission of Inquiry,” Ms Putt said.
“We are concerned that possible breaches of the Constitution Act 1934, the Criminal Code Act 1924 and the Archives Act 1983 need to be explored.”
“The picture that is painted is of routine interference by the Premier in the Justice portfolio, and that he directed the then Attorney General Mr Kons to make a Magisterial appointment for reasons that seem not to be connected so much to his fitness for the job, but for Mr Lennon’s political purposes.”
“Ms Hornsey’s later intervention also must be scrutinised, as yet again a culture of interference in appointments for purposes of political payback seems to have been in operation, although in contradiction to the Premier.”
“There is a Shakespearian dimension to these events that involves the foibles of human nature, but the problem for Tasmania is that this is not just some soap box drama, it involves the standards of governance and decision-making at the highest levels.”
“Had an anti-corruption body been in existence Mr Burch would have had a place to take his allegations and evidence for investigation, and the revelation of a stalled police investigation and the need to get the key document reassembled and tabled in Parliament under a shroud of secrecy in order to prompt further scrutiny adds more weight to the need for an ICAC type body,” Ms Putt concluded.
Hansard Excerpt: Mr Kons on the Adjournment, Tuesday, 8 April 2008
“I also had a conversation with the former Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Linda Hornsey, regarding the appointment and her concerns about how it may have been perceived. As Deputy Premier, it was commonplace for me to discuss a range of issues with Ms Hornsey. It is also normal practice when it comes to assessing appointments to obtain a range of opinions to ensure the best applicant is selected. It was perfectly proper for the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet to be afforded the opportunity to express an opinion to me, but ultimately the recommendation I take to Cabinet is my decision and mine alone.
On examining the relevant qualifications, I concluded that Mr Hay’s experience of serving as a temporary magistrate, along with his significant experience as a legal practitioner, made him the best person to become the next magistrate. Having made this decision, I communicated it to the Secretary of the Department of Justice. As the previous document prepared by the department was no longer valid, it was appropriate to have that document shredded, and I did so.”
