Sven Wiener
I think getting a full ICAC is going to take a lot more public demonstration as otherwise Brenton, Jeremy, Greg and Jim will outvote Nick and Terry, to give David and Lara a parliamentary committee recommendation amounting to exactly what the state Labor Party (and presumably Tas Liberal Party) wants. After all, can anyone who supported the fast track assessment of the pulp mill be considered fair-minded enough to give Tasmania what it needs? Perhaps by some miracle, I’ll turn out to be wrong regarding this. Better though to not trust in fate.
Today I gave evidence under oath for fifteen minutes to the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Ethical Conduct which has just held in Launceston a two day session of interviews (6 & 7 Nov) with those who made written submissions by 1st of August.
Committee members are Brenton Best, Jeremy Rockcliff, Greg Hall, Jim Wilkinson (chairperson), Nick McKim and Terry Martin. Nick McKim wasn’t in attendance during my interview. Jeremy and Brenton, both from Braddon, appeared surprisingly chummy towards each other considering how partisan they both are. Terry Martin listened intently the whole time. Proceedings were recorded and are protected under parliamentary privilege.
In my opinion, the committee has been stacked in favour of producing an outcome whereby whoever oversees any future ICAC/Ethics Committee, comes from within Tasmania. Seemed throughout my interview as though Jim Wilkinson was just reading to me what he wanted to have happen as far as the Committee overall findings go and presuming I agreed with this.
I was trying to describe two instances of corrupt local government behaviour that have particularly bothered me recently however Jim seemed to dismiss this attempt at pointing out failings of our current State Ombudsman system by telling me that the committee can’t help me with those matters. Don’t want to know how the current system is failing, eh Jim?
I managed to get a few criticisms of the Supreme Court (which currently is our default ICAC as that’s where the State Ombudsman suggests you can still take things if they conclude the law has been broken).
Barrister Jim thanked me for my time. Jim agreed one should only use the Supreme Court if one has a very strong case. I added that the Supreme Court is no good if the at best predictably delayed justice it might give, is of no assistance because of the likely twelve month minimum delay in getting a judgement. I didn’t want to get too offensive by overstaying my welcome further and so then obediently got up and walked out.
I think getting a full ICAC is going to take a lot more public demonstration as otherwise Brenton, Jeremy, Greg and Jim will outvote Nick and Terry, to give David and Lara a parliamentary committee recommendation amounting to exactly what the state Labor Party (and presumably Tas Liberal Party) wants. After all, can anyone who supported the fast track assessment of the pulp mill be considered fair-minded enough to give Tasmania what it needs? Perhaps by some miracle, I’ll turn out to be wrong regarding this. Better though to not trust in fate.
