[Greens-Media] Tas GreensMR_Key Unanswered Shreddergate Questions Plague Lennon_P Putt MP

[greens at parliament.tas.gov.au]

CONTINUAL EVASION ON WHY KONS COVER UP OF SHREDDERGATE OCCURRED
Many Important Questions Unanswered
Peg Putt MP
Greens Opposition Leader
Friday, 18 April 2008
Contact: State Parliamentary Offices of the Tasmanian Greens, (03) 6233 8300
www.tas.greens.org.au
The Tasmanian Greens today released a list of key unanswered questions in the 'Shreddergate' affair that demonstrate the orchestrated attempt by government to evade openness on the substance of the issue, over which the imperative is growing for an inquiry into the government's actions, attempted cover up, and the potential impacts in compromising the impartiality of judicial and other appointments and of the public service.
Greens Opposition Leader Peg Putt MP stressed that Steve Kons' lying to Parliament was the tip of the iceberg, and that the vast bulk of that iceberg - that is, the reason why he lied and just what was being covered up - remains hidden. The subsequent revelations of Nigel Burch have upped the ante.
The Greens slammed the gutter tactics of Labor MLC Doug Parkinson who revealed how anxious the Lennon government is over this affair being dragged into the light of day and the contempt in which they hold community concerns with his public meltdown of name calling and defamation and avoidance of the real issues.
"Very important questions over 'Shreddergate' are being repeatedly evaded by the Premier and his government, and at a cursory count the Greens estimate there are at least twenty of these unanswered questions, which only builds the pressure on them for a Commission of Inquiry," Ms Putt said.
"If the unseemly meltdown by Labor's Doug Parkinson was meant to be a diversionary tactic, with its classic Lennon administration hallmark of attacking the messenger whilst evading the substance of the issue, it didn't work out as he made it patently obvious that this government is in a blind panic."
"Mr Parkinson must apologise for his admitted defamation of the whistleblower Nigel Burch, it was a classic example of attacking the messenger because he has caused the government discomfort by failing to stay under their thumb when he witnessed events he felt were beyond the pale."
"The tip of the iceberg was Steve Kons lying to Parliament, and the vast bulk of the iceberg, that is, the reason why he lied and just what was being covered up, remains hidden."
Key unanswered questions are:
*           Why did the government embark on a cover up of the aborted decision to appoint Simon Cooper a magistrate - denying it ever happened until the Greens produced the incriminating document in Parliament?
*           Surely this indicates that they knew there had been wrongdoing and hoped to prevent it coming out?
*           Exactly what had occurred, who was involved, what role did they play, on whose authority, and did this involve improper or criminal actions?
*           Why has the Premier consistently resisted fully answering questions over his role when put to him in Parliament and outside it, using tactics of evasion and deflection, if there is nothing to hide?
*           Why have the Premier and his government failed to respond to the substance of new, explosive revelations about the actions of himself and others? Are they hiding in hope that it will blow over?
*           Have the Constitution Act 1934, the Criminal Code 1924, and other laws been broken?
*           Do they understand that this failure to answer is unacceptable and continues to build the case for a Commission of Inquiry?
*           How far does the culture of political payback, blacklisting, bullying and intimidation extend under this government?
The role of the Premier
It has been alleged, and remains unanswered:
*           That the Premier directed then Attorney General Mr Kons (directed, not suggested) to appoint Simon Cooper, against the wishes of Mr Kons. (May be in contravention of the Constitution and the Criminal Code.)
*           That the Premier did this because he wanted to remove Mr Cooper from the RPDC - an improper reason not related to Mr Cooper's capacity to undertake the position.
Note: The Premier and government members continually evade questions about his role in relation to Mr Cooper by saying that he didn't interfere in the appointment of the Magistrate that eventuated (that is, the appointment of Mr Hay). This avoids addressing his role in relation to Mr Cooper.
The role of then Attorney General Mr Kons
It is a fact that Mr Kons decided to appoint Simon Cooper as a Magistrate and signed a 'Cabinet noting..' document to that effect, but this was later destroyed. Unanswered questions are:
*           Was Mr Kons personally opposed to appointing Mr Cooper, and directed to do so by the Premier against his wishes, in the first instance?
*           Does Mr Kons' handwritten annotation on the document indicate his efforts to distance himself from the decision?
*           Why was the document destroyed after he spoke with Ms Hornsey?
*           Did he personally destroy the document, as alleged? If so, why did he mislead Parliament on this by continuing to give the impression that someone else had done so? Is this part of the cover up?
*           Why did he then proceed to nominate another person (Mr Hay) as magistrate?
*           Why did Mr Kons lie to Parliament, denying that the document and intention to appoint Mr Cooper had ever existed or that Ms Hornsey had intervened with him prior to his destruction of the document?
 
The role of then Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet Ms Hornsey
It is the alleged actions of Ms Hornsey that prompted the whistleblower, Nigel Burch, to retrieve the shredded document last year, and report the matter to the DPP and police, because he believed a crime had been committed.
*           Did Ms Hornsey intervene to prevent Mr Cooper being appointed because he had revealed the circumstances in which Gunns had withdrawn their pulp mill proposal from RPDC assessment, a political embarrassment for the government that had been spinning an entirely different scenario?
*           Was this also because she had come under pressure over her role in intervening to forestall written notification to Gunns of critical deficiencies in the Integrated Impact Statement, which had ensured no written record of the RPDC communicating this vital information to Gunns?
*           Was Ms Hornsey acting under instruction, or with the knowledge of the Premier?
*           If not, was Ms Hornsey acting alone, was she acting contrary to the Premier's wishes, and was she acting outside of her authority?
*           Was personal intervention by Ms Hornsey without the Premier's knowledge or sanction a serial occurrence? (Note: the Premier also told Parliament that he had been unaware of Ms Hornsey's earlier intervention with the RPDC) If so, was this acceptable, was it to provide deniability to the Premier, or was it against the Premier's wishes?
"The roles of the Premier, of then Attorney General Steve Kons, and of then DPAC Head Linda Hornsey have not been fully explained, but must be given a full public airing."
"As the government is in bunker mode and repeatedly failing to answer on the vital issues it will take a Commission of Inquiry with investigatory powers to find out the full story."
"This must happen so that any wrongdoing can be dealt with and confidence restored in the way power is exercised in Tasmania," Ms Putt concluded.
________________________________________
Text of the Greens' Motion to Establish a Commission of Inquiry:
That this House: - Directs the Government to advise His Excellency the Governor to direct that: - 
 
1.             A Commission of Inquiry be established under the Commission of Inquiry Act 1995 into the circumstances surrounding the appointment of a Magistrate with the following terms of reference:
 
a)      the intention of then Attorney-General Mr Kons to appoint Simon Cooper as a Magistrate, and the background thereto;
 
b)      the abandonment of that intention and how it transpired, including whether there was intervention with him by the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet or any other persons;
 
c)       the reasons for the change of mind regarding that Magisterial appointment, including whether it was related to Mr Cooper's role in revealing the circumstances in which Gunns Ltd withdrew their pulp mill proposal from the RPDC assessment process;
 
d)      whether any criminal act may have occurred; and
 
e)      all other matters incidental thereto.
 
2.      the Inquiry can investigate, and make recommendations, in relation to any other matter brought to light during its examination of the terms of reference; and
 
3.      the Investigative officers employed by the Inquiry shall have access to all investigatory tools and powers available to Tasmania Police; and any extra powers as deemed necessary and appropriate by the Parliament.