Lindsay Tuffin
NIGEL Burch’s statement ( What Nigel Burch said ) raises the most serious questions about governance in Tasmania.
All the people named in that statement need to give a full and frank explanation for their actions to satisfy the Tasmanian people that Tasmanian government is not corrupt.
The questions include:
1. Why did the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Police Commissioner decide they would not act on this information until – as Mr Burch alleges – the Brian Green trial was over?
2. Why did the Police Commissioner not act on Mr Burch’s information?
3. Was the Police Commissioner instructed by the Premier or one of the officers of the Premier to sit on that information?
4. Was Linda Hornsey instructed by the Premier to interfere in the appointment of Simon Cooper as magistrate?
5. What other matters relating to ministerial responsibility has the Premier interfered in?
6. Why was Mr Burch summarily dismissed from his role as advisor to Steven Kons?
What the Greens say:
GOVERNMENT IS IN A DEEPER MIRE AFTER BURCH EMAIL STATEMENT
Desperation Shows in Deliberate Misrepresentation
Peg Putt MP
Greens Opposition Leader
Thursday, 17 April 2008
www.tas.greens.org.au
The Tasmanian Greens today refuted Lennon government claims on the Nigel Burch email revelations released by the Greens, saying the government is showing increasing desperation as it deliberately misconstrues and ignores vital revelations.
Greens Opposition Leader Peg Putt MP said that far from exonerating the Premier over interference with the then Attorney-General over the appointment of a Magistrate as claimed by the government, Mr Burch’s information confirms interference by the Premier at the front end of the process and by the Head of his Department at the other end, both for reasons not related to the fitness of that person for the position, but instead for their own devious political purposes. Continual interference in the Justice portfolio by the Premier was also alleged.
Ms Putt also denounced the use of only one part of a sentence, taken out of context, as “a sneaky and tricky attempt to slur the Greens”, when Doug Parkinson MLC falsely claimed that the Greens’ MP Mr Booth was somehow implicated in dictating what was in Mr Burch’s statement, Mr Parkinson having failed to report accurately that Mr Burch had written ‘…have a solicitor also look at it and call me about any suggested changes, then give it to the media’. This sentence obviously referred to any legal impediment to release of the statement, and in fact the Greens made it clear that they did not alter the statement in any way.
“The Lennon government is showing increasing desperation as they flat out deny the realities of Nigel Burch’s revelations, which actually strengthen and amplify claims of unwarranted political interference by both the Premier and the Head of his Department in the appointment of a Magistrate,” Ms Putt said.
“It would be funny if it wasn’t so serious that Doug Parkinson has made the totally unsupportable assertion that the Premier is somehow cleared when in fact we are told of interference by the Premier at the front end of the appointment process and his then Departmental Secretary at the other end, both for political reasons unrelated to the suitability of the applicants to become a Magistrate.”
“Not only has the Premier been dumped in it for his machinations aimed at removing Mr Cooper from the RPDC, but we are still intrigued by Mr Lennon’s carefully crafted Parliamentary statements that conspicuously failed to deny that he had anything to do with Mr Cooper being initially selected for appointment by the then Attorney General.”
“The Premier has run for cover and his new Deputy, Mr Bartlett, is nowhere to be seen on these further, very concerning revelations and the obvious need for them to be investigated by a Commission of Inquiry.”
“Neither has the government refuted that Ms Hornsey intervened with Mr Kons, nor that this intervention involved pulp mill payback to Mr Cooper.”
“The accusation of routine interference in the Justice portfolio is also significant because of special provisions in the Constitution regarding the independence of the Attorney General which provides that ‘no office, power, duty, authority, obligation, or discretion that is by law conferred or imposed upon the Attorney General shall be allocated to, or exercised or discharged by, any other Minister of the Crown or the Secretary to Cabinet’.”
“As for the sneaky and tricky attempt to deflect heat back onto the Greens by quoting part of a sentence of Nigel Burch’s email out of context so it could then be misconstrued, this sentence was an obvious comment that legal advice may suggest alteration to the statement, although as we made clear no alteration took place.”
“It is just more desperate spin from the man who has angered and alarmed Tasmania with his earlier claim belittling the affair thus far, including that a Minister lied to Parliament, and if the best he can do is cut a sentence in half and indulge in unwarranted character assassination of Kim Booth, then they are in big trouble.”
What the Libs say:
Will Hodgman MP
Leader of the State Opposition
Thursday April 17, 2008
Government must be compelled to answer questions
The State Government’s repeated failure to answer serious questions that have arisen from the shreddergate scandal means it must be compelled to provide them.
It is an outrage that Paul Lennon’s contempt for the truth has brought matters to a point where an inquiry, such as a Commission of Inquiry, is needed to get to the heart of this affair.
“This is not some trivial matter that the Premier can brush aside,” Leader of the State Opposition, Will Hodgman, said.
“We are talking about police and judicial independence, government lies and political interference and this goes to very heart of our democracy,” Mr Hodgman said.
“It would seem that there is something very rotten at the core of this government and the State Opposition will not allow the Premier to sweep this under the carpet.”
One of the alarming questions that remains outstanding and which has taken on new significance in light of yesterday’s revelations by Mr Nigel Burch, is exactly when the government became aware of police inquiries into the shreddergate affair, that it is now believed started some seven months ago.
Premier Lennon has said he was not aware of any police investigation, but the question of whether his office, or other Ministers, were made aware has not been answered. If they were made aware, by whom?
What were the real reasons for Mr Nigel Burch’s dismissal? Something Mr Lennon has been so desperate to distance himself from.
Mr Lennon has also been at pains over the past 12 days to avoid answering this simple question:
“Do you categorically deny that you or anyone acting on your behalf had discussions with Mr Steve Kons, or his office or department, surrounding who would be Tasmania’s new magistrate, prior to this matter coming to Cabinet.”
If Mr Lennon was involved in trying to get Mr Simon Cooper appointed a magistrate in the first instance, as has been alleged, then the answer would be yes.
It would appear from a government media statement last night implying there would be nothing wrong with this in any event that the answer is yes.
And yet the Premier has repeatedly and wilfuly refused to answer yes to this question, and has therefore misled Parliament by omission.
Tasmanians saw last week with the resignation of the former Deputy Premier how serious a contempt of Parliament misleading is.
“The Premier and his cohorts have been given every possible opportunity to come clean on simple matters of detail, in and out of Parliament, since this matter was first brought to light by a newspaper article 12 days ago,” Mr Hodgman said.
“They have blown every single chance – and now their stories seem to be changing with every day.
“If this was just some innocent matter where the Premier was just taking an interest in another portfolio and didn’t get his way, why wouldn’t he tell the truth about that, and why would Mr Kons lie so blatantly in Parliament about that?
“It is a disgraceful state of affairs that it would seem that the only way we may be able to get some straight answers about this scandal is to establish an inquiry that would compel witnesses and papers, and where evidence would be required to be provided under oath, notwithstanding the fact that Premier Lennon was declared an unsatisfactory witness in the recent Supreme Court trial of his former Deputy Premier, Bryan Green.”
Mr Hodgman said the State Opposition would obviously support Parliament being recalled to debate a motion to establish a Commission of Inquiry.
The State Opposition encourages Upper House members to move for such an inquiry and will continue to push for the government to establish it off its own back to clear the air. The new Attorney General, Mr Llewellyn, has a very important responsibility in this regard.
“What all this just serves to reinforce is that there is no independent anti-corruption or investigative body to which this matter can be referred and this has to be addressed,” Mr Hodgman said.
The State Opposition is committed to the creation of an independent anti-corruption watchdog, and a parliamentary standards commissioner.
