Part 1

That a select committee be appointed with power to send for persons and papers, with leave to sit during any adjournment of the Council, and with leave to adjourn from place to place, to inquire into and report upon the replacement of the PV Freycinet by the PV Fortescue and all issues relevant to this matter, with particular reference to -

(1) Whether there was any operational urgency relative to the replacement of the PV Freycinet.

(2) The design and construction of the PV Fortescue.

(3) The terms of the contract and any variation thereto.

(4) Any changes to the design of the vessel.

(5) The suitability of the vessel to meet the operational requirements of the Department of Police and Emergency Management - DPEM - to undertake the operational duties as required.

(6) The supervision and control of the construction phase of the vessel; and

(7) The engagement by DPEM of a naval architect to design the vessel; and

(8) Other matters incidental thereto.

And that Mr Wilkinson, Mr Harriss, Mrs Taylor and the mover be of the committee.

Madam President, the member for Nelson has covered a lot of what I was going to talk about in the previous motion. However, I need to go through some of that again in putting forward sufficient evidence to convince the members in this Chamber that there is a need for a select committee inquiry to consider and look at just what has happened with this vessel. There has been much discussion on the PV Fortescue, which is a major component in the police armory and in the policing of the fishing industry. In fact, I am not being flippant when I make this comment, and I have spoken to a lot of police and I have spoken to a lot of people in relation to this vessel, and really about the only thing that you can say with any certainty about the PV Fortescue is, in fact, that it looks like a vessel. That is really about all you can say with any certainty about it.

Mr Harriss - That is reassuring.

Mr DEAN - It is. It should be reassuring.

Ms Thorp - Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, probably is a duck.

Members laughing.

Mr DEAN - The problems with this vessel commenced at the time the contract was entered into to build it. Those problems have continued to follow the vessel right up until now. In actual fact, it started before. It started with the procurement process. In fact, they are likely to exist while Tasmania Police has ownership of it because, as has already been said in the previous motion, it just cannot deliver what it was contracted to deliver. It cannot do that.

Madam President, a little later on and towards the end, I will refer to a document that I now have where I think you will find it is now being conceded that it is the case and that this vessel will be replaced sooner rather than later. It will be considered for replacement. It will not go for the entire period it was thought it would go for when it was initially contracted to be built. I have a document I will refer to at a later stage.

Poor design, poor workmanship and a failure to ensure close management and control of everything about this vessel, probably brought on by undue haste to build it, would seem to be causal factors regarding the inability of this vessel to perform its intended tasks. I raised the circumstances regarding the PV Fortescue with the Auditor-General about 14 months ago. I had a long discussion with him suggesting that there was a need for a full inquiry and investigation involving the vessel right from the tendering and letting stage of the contract to the overseeing and construction of it and its capacity to do what it was purchased for and meant to do. The Auditor-General agreed but felt at that stage, because of the report that was just handed down, that it was more appropriate that I should wait until that report was handed down.

He did say that his inquiry was specific and needed only to touch on identified parts of the process. It was not going to be a complete inquiry covering every aspect relative to PV Fortescue. He made that clear to me.

In fact, the first audit of the Auditor-General was to establish whether or not procurements over $10 000 by government departments were in accordance with the Treasurer's Instructions. This was then amended to include the procurement details of the PV Fortescue. It was included in that initial inquiry as an add-on.

The second report, number 70, is the one that we are referring to today, resulted from a letter to the Auditor-General from the Department of Police and Emergency Management principal legal officer, Mr Mark Miller, expressing concern that the Auditor-General's office had been misled during the procurement inquiry. This was the original inquiry involving the Freycinet and the Fortescue - the Fortescue replacing the Freycinet.

These inquiries were not intended to be full inquiries concerning the whole circumstances regarding the replacement of the Freycinet. They were, as I said, point specific. Following the handing down of the Auditor-General's special report number 91 on 28 September 2010, which was a follow-up of special reports 62, 65 and 70, the report that most interested me was special report 70 - 'Procurement in Government departments and payment of accounts by government departments' in which the PV Fortescue detail was provided.

At this time I again addressed the need for an extended inquiry with the Auditor-General. He did not disagree that a full inquiry was necessary saying that a select committee was better placed to delve much deeper into the processes with a view to establishing just what had happened and possibly making recommendations that would likely avoid a similar situation recurring in every aspect. The Auditor-General accepted that he was limited in the manner in which he was able to progress his report because he said it was point specific.

Of course the State, I would think, won't want an investigation of the circumstances. Because with the evidence already available, including a damaging engineer's report, and I will refer to that a little later on - and it has already been raised by the member for Nelson and now the findings of the Auditor-General in his special report - I think that they will feel they are in a difficult position. Whether that will be the case I do not know but there is certainly some evidence to suggest that they will have some questions to answer. Instead, in my opinion, the Government should be embracing this motion and supporting an inquiry that will look at all the facts because if it is not all brought into the open there will always be the potential for further embarrassment coming from similar dealings that could occur in the future.

The Fortescue needs to be put to rest, probably buried or sunk, and this inquiry may do that otherwise it will continue to haunt the Government and Tasmania Police. The Fortescue replacement is already being talked about and yet the paint is hardly dry on that vessel. Clearly the Government has been left wanting in the replacement program for the Freycinet and has been embarrassed. I think that is clear and I do not think they would deny that. However, in my opinion to date they have gotten off this fairly lightly. Hence the reason that it all needs to be exposed, it all needs to be brought out into the open. It is only a select committee inquiry that can really do that.

It has been a monumental stuff-up the whole way. The minister of the time, who at the beginning was David Llewellyn, would have questions to answer, if not his department who were involved in the approvals and the signing-off process that took place, or did not take place. So there will be questions, Madam President - if this select committee is supported - of those people, and the process and part that they played in this whole thing.

There are many areas the Auditor-General did not touch on, or indeed with his brief expand on, or make findings on. A select committee will have the ability to complete a proper and thorough inquiry into the whole affair and would be in a strong position to make findings on all aspects of the process, and consequently make some sound recommendations and put this matter hopefully to rest.

However, having said that, I reiterate that whilst Tasmania Police retain the vessel I do not think it can be rested. If anybody has acted inappropriately or contrary to policy or unethically - and I am not saying anybody has - practices need to be established to ensure that the chances of it happening again are remote, as I have previously mentioned.

As I said at the beginning, there is an abundance of evidence to demonstrate that not all went well with regards to the replacement of the Freycinet. This replacement vessel was critical for Tasmania Police to provide them with the capacity to police both State and Commonwealth waters up to a distance of 500 kilometres and certainly outside of 370 kilometres offshore. The Freycinet was through age and ongoing maintenance losing its capacity to provide the service and therefore replacement became a necessity. There is no argument about that. The Freycinet had been in the ownership of the police for quite a long time and its use-by date was drawing nigh.

Interestingly, it was identified as early as 2000 by the Department of Police and Emergency Management that the replacement of Freycinet would be required by 2006. This was six years' notice of the need to replace Freycinet and this is very significant, because of an exemption that DPEM were able to eventually get under the Treasurer's instructions relative to procurement of property over $100 000. I am sorry I have to go through this again but the evidence and information given previously is not and cannot be used as part of this motion, so I need to go through it again.

Exemptions are only available when the replacement is unforeseen. 'Unforeseen' is a critical word that is referred to in the Auditor-General's report. We are speaking about a contract initially agreed at $1 million, but it has now blown out, I am told, in excess of 50 per cent of that original figure. In fact, the figure that has been mentioned, and perhaps the minister might be able to correct all of this if it is not right, is nearing $1.6 million and still growing. It is not finished. The issues with this vessel, Fortescue, are not finished. Because of the changes to the contract of employment, changed for another individual and that person has been mentioned earlier today, the blow-out could be a cost against the taxpayer, DPEM. I think there is still some debate in relation to this, but at the end of the day it looks like the full cost of any additional works will be borne very clearly by the taxpayer; us and the other workers in this State.

The procurement process, the area the Auditor-General examined, left a lot to be desired in my opinion and that of others. Very clearly the Auditor-General is clear with his disappointment of the process. He makes it very clear in his report. The procurement policy provides that in some circumstances an exemption from seeking quotations and calling for tenders is provided for within the Treasurer's Instructions. This is said to be a robust system and with exemptions treated with care and restricted to the Secretary of Treasury and/or a person authorised by the secretary. This relates to procurements of, as I said, over $100 000.

The Treasurer's Instruction 1107 is clear and it outlines the procedure that is necessary in all circumstances. It is easily understood. There is nothing ambiguous about it, it is very clear. Equally as clear is the Treasurer's Instruction 1114, 'Relative exemptions regarding Treasurer's Instruction 1107'. It refers to no tenders received, non-conforming tenders, cannot satisfy terms, et cetera, and with some other points raised as part of that.

The point relied on by DPEM to get an exemption was included in dot point 6 of 1114 which relates to, and the wording is: 'Strictly necessary, extreme urgency brought about by unforeseen events by the agency'. Interestingly, in the Department of Treasury and Finance Exemptions Report as referred to in their Annual Report 2007-08, there is no reference to probably the most important point of providing exemptions under the Treasurer's instruction 1114 and that is 'brought about by events unforeseen by the agency'. I cannot see how an issue can be unforeseen when the problem was flagged some six years previously; however, a full inquiry could reveal something different.

Sabre Marine is the company that was contracted to build the vessel Fortescue and was used because it is claimed they were building similar vessels to that required by DPEM for the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard - AVCG. On the advice that I have the similarity is questionable.

There are a number of significant issues surrounding personnel, the designing of the vessel, the independence of a certain person, the signing of a contract and employment of an individual. The contract and changes to it raised numerous issues and an inquiry is necessary to get to the bottom of all of this. Those issues, in the main, were not a part of the Auditor-General's report or his inquiry. So there are many issues in there that need still to be considered and brought out. While they are not and while they remain where they currently are this matter is not, as I said originally, likely to be concluded. It is not likely to die.

As the Auditor-General said, the employment by DPEM of the person who designed the vessel on the day the contract was signed was a 'strange action'. Those are the words the Auditor-General has used in his report. That 'strange action' needs further development and needs further consideration. An inquiry, hopefully, would get to the bottom of that and find out just what did happen and the reasons for it.

The revised contract raises many issues, the most important being that remedial costs would be most likely picked up by DPEM and not the builder. So far we know it is in the area of, as I previously referred to this figure, $500 000, or $600 000, or getting up near that and still climbing. It is not finished. There is little doubt that if the vessel was retained at these costs it would likely exceed the original building cost and that could occur as well. The original building costs were identified, as I said, at $1 million.

The engineer's report has been previously mentioned in another motion by the member for Nelson and I just wanted to make some comment from that to give more support to the reasons as to why we now need this select committee moving forward. DPEM engaged the marine engineering company, Alan Muir and Associates Pty Ltd, to complete a report on the Fortescue. Some of you no doubt have seen that report; it is a damning report and it raises numerous issues that require further discussion and inquiry.

Madam President, I do not intend to go through it in detail, because today all that is needed is for me to convince and put sufficient evidence before members to satisfy them that this further inquiry is necessary; however, I will refer to parts of it. Muir and Associates were to report - and this was their reporting condition - on an assessment of the vessel's compliance with requirements. That was the brief the company had and nothing else. It was very clear and very specific. The report I have was made available to me from a person who should remain anonymous and I was given that report quite a long time ago, Madam President. It has a number of blackouts in it but nevertheless provides a clear understanding of the marine engineer's findings.

Ms Thorp - Excuse me, Madam President - I do not know what the protocol is here but how do I ask the honourable member to table that document?

Madam PRESIDENT - My advice is that at the end of the member's speech you may request that it be tabled.

Ms Thorp - Thank you.

Mr DEAN - I am interested as to why I would be required to do that because I have no doubt the minister has a copy of it, Madam President. What would be the reasons behind wanting me to table the report which is the same one the minister has?

Madam PRESIDENT - Let us not have debate now, let us continue the flow of your report.

Mr DEAN - Thank you. As I said, it has a number of blackouts but nevertheless provides a clear understanding of the marine engineer's findings. This report raises and comments on the position MAST played in the construction and supervision phase of the vessel, suggesting that there was a conflict of interest and that independence was necessary.

This is the first time MAST has been raised, Madam President, in that report. This requires further investigation and it is only in this report that MAST is mentioned - to my knowledge, the reports that I have. The Auditor-General made no reference to it. Mr Michael Hunn previously mentioned and employed by DPEM was previously, on my understanding and advice, a plan approval employee of Marine and Safety Tasmania - MAST - and was the designer of the Fortescue, so you can see where the conflict may have come from.

There does not appear to be much, if anything, that has really gone right with this whole deal. Just about every move can be questioned as to why certain things occurred, why certain persons were engaged, about independence, a myriad of matters. Design details are said to be minimal or non-existent - these are comments coming from the Muir report. The report outlined a number of faults limiting operations and/or that were in contravention of the uniform shipping laws.

As I said, Madam President, it is a damning report. I realise that some of those things have now been fixed but there are ongoing problems all the time. I think you will believe from that statement that this is a serious matter and should not be underestimated in any circumstances. It is a serious matter. In fact the engineer has identified that there are design faults with the vessel that are potentially dangerous and life-threatening.

They are the words that are used in this report, Madam President - 'potentially dangerous and life-threatening'. The survey authority is referred to in this report and, according to the author, is not without blame. As I said, it is a damning report and while some modifications and repairs have been completed it remains a substandard vessel. This is what the engineer said in a conclusion of one phase of this report, 'They are but not all the result of poor design and detailing'. The next part in my report is blacked out, Madam President - '… poor supervision by Marine and Safety Tasmania. Part of the above can also be attributable to a failure on the part of the Tasmania Police Service to have an independent owner's representative on site during construction'.

Madam President, there is much more of the report but I will leave it here as I think that is enough to give strong support for the need for this inquiry. Madam President, at sea is a risky business at the best of times, let alone in a vessel that very clearly had and has design problems.

Police are involved in sea chases. They are involved in very difficult search and rescue operations. They do not have the options in many cases to only go out to sea in calm conditions. Police put their lives at risk and are prepared to do so and particularly in instances where the life of another person is at stake. They do that daily and on the water they do it on a regular basis as well.

In my opinion the select committee is necessary to determine and satisfy the areas that I have previously referred to. If it does not take place this matter is not going to go away and more importantly, the lessons to be learned - and I think there are many - will not be fully known and therefore the practices changed to ensure the likelihood of a similar situation being minimised. You can never say that it is going to stop something occurring.

Some change will occur resulting from the Auditor-General's report and recommendations and they are included in the document, there for people to read. In the main they relate to procurement. Members will see those recommendations very clearly.

Ms Thorp - And they have been addressed.

Mr DEAN - Included in special report 91 the original recommendation made in the original report, I think it was report 70, was:

'We recommend that exemptions sought on the grounds of operational urgency should be appropriately justified with particular emphasis on why the events leading to the urgency were unforeseen.'

The other recommendations are contained on page 63 of that report and also on page 65. The ones on page 63 are three recommendations relating to procurement. The recommendation on page 4 is:

'We recommend that DPEM undertake a review to determine whether to replace or repair the PV Fortescue. The review should take into consideration DPEM's state and Commonwealth offshore responsibilities.'

You can see from that that the Auditor-General has not looked at many other issues that have been involved in this process. His report has been point-specific. There are only certain areas that the Auditor-General considered and looked at. He did not give consideration to the entire operation and neither was the Auditor-General required to. He was not required to and that is clear so it is not as though he has not done what he was supposed to do; he did everything he was supposed to do and more. There are lots of other issues.

I mentioned earlier that I would make comment on the PV Fortescue and its future with Tasmania Police. I thank the minister and the minister's office for making available to me a document in relation to a current review that is being undertaken by Tasmania Police. This document sets out the circumstances and the conditions of that review and what the review will do. Paraphrasing what it does, it will simply look at the vessel fleet that Tasmania Police have and consider whether or not it is meeting their requirements, whether changes are needed and if changes are needed, what changes are necessary. It covers all of that.

The review by Tasmania Police, I understand, will get underway probably in the first quarter of 2011. I understand it will be independent. I applaud Tasmania Police for wanting to do this.

It is probably fair to say that this review has been brought on by what has happened with the Fortescue. That is probably what has caused it and brought it on, if the truth be known. I would say that it has certainly played a part in it.

I want to quote at the bottom of page 1 in the penultimate paragraph:

'Amongst other things the review is charged with establishing a strategic replacement schedule for all three large vessels and consequently the replacement time frame of the PV Fortescue will be a consideration but not the sole focus of the review. '

I think that we can gauge from that that the PV Fortescue's life with Tasmania Police will only be short. It should only be short as well. Not only should the police and the users of that vessel not be compromised but neither should any other person who may be requiring the support of that vessel out at sea. So there are lots of issues regarding this. I think some mention was made by the member for Nelson or the member for Huon it might have been, in relation to what will happen to the PV Fortescue at the end of the day. I just do not know. Because of its history and publicity, I think you will probably be lucky to give it away.

Ms Thorp - It is being used currently.

Mr DEAN - I beg your pardon?

Ms Thorp - It is in current use. It is fully operational.

Mr DEAN - I know where it is being used. It is currently up at Launceston or it was a short time ago and it is probably still there. But it is not being used for what it was designed for and what it was contracted to be used for.

Ms Thorp - It is still being used. It is still part of the fleet and it is still being used.

Mr DEAN - Of course it is a part of the fleet, but it is an obstacle to the police.

Ms Thorp - It is what?

Mr DEAN - It is a problem to the police because it cannot deliver what it is supposed to deliver.

Ms Thorp - It is still an operational vessel that is in use.

Mr DEAN - Of course it is an operational vessel. They have got dinghies, the police have, that are operational vessels, but they are very limited with what they can do and where they can go.

Ms Thorp - You use a dinghy when you need to.

Mr DEAN - They have got rubber duckies, they cannot go too far either.

Ms Thorp - You use a rubber ducky where you need a rubber ducky.

Mr DEAN - You are right.

Ms Thorp - You use a trailerable vessel where you need a trailerable vessel. You use an offshore vessel when you need an offshore vessel.

Mr DEAN - I urge honourable members in this Chamber to give support to this motion because, as I said originally, this matter will not be put to rest. It is too big an issue. It is costly. It is a costly issue and it is a cost to the taxpayer, and it does impact on the ability of the police to provide the services that are required of them. We need to get to the bottom of this. There are many areas which have not been touched on by the Auditor-General, or anybody else, that we need to proceed with.

Madam President, having said that and there are lots of other issues I could go into, but I do not intend to.

Ms Thorp - Could you please table that document to which you referred?

Mr DEAN - I have a document and because of writings and that on it I am not sure whether I should table it. I just wonder why the minister would require that I table a document that the minister possesses.

Ms Thorp - I do not know which one it is.

Mr DEAN - And her departments will have a copy of this report.

Ms Thorp - What is it called?

Mr DEAN - I will tell you exactly what it is called.

Ms Thorp - Then I can get a copy.

Mr DEAN - You know very well because I referred to the report in Estimates, Madam President, and the Minister for Police was questioned in relation to that report during the Estimates process, so I am not quite sure what game the minister is playing here.

Ms Thorp - I am not. I just do not know which report you are referring to and I would like to get a copy and familiarise myself.

Mr DEAN - I referred to it at the beginning. It is the Alan Muir and Associates Pty Ltd report, 'Structural, Mechanical and Maritime Engineering Design'.

Ms Thorp - Thank you very much.

Mr DEAN - PV Fortescue Examination and Evaluation Report for Tasmania Police Service and it is dated, 'Prepared 12 October 2009.'

Ms Thorp - Thank you very, very much, I am so grateful.

Mr DEAN - It is signed by Mr Alan Muir. Madam President, having said that I would urge honourable members to support the motion and I wait with interest for any comment that might be made.

Part 3
Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - Of course I am anxious for this matter to proceed and I do not think there would be any one of us in this House or just about anywhere else who would not want to see this matter investigated, just to really see what did happen and what has gone on. To suggest that it really is about finances and finances only is an absolute nonsense. It is far more than finances, Madam President, and I thought I made that fairly clear when I spoke in the first instance on this, as did other honourable members. It is very clear it relates to the management of the process, it relates to the design of it, it relates to a myriad of other things and finance is just one small part of it. It is far wider than that.

I thank honourable members for their contribution and for the comments made. I do not agree with all of it, quite obviously. The position with the sessional committee is that when you set up a select committee you look around the Chamber at the expertise that you would like to have on that committee, and you hand select those people for that purpose. There is no disrespect to any other member when I make that comment, but it is important to have somebody with a legal background in my view because of some of the issues that may well be developed and may come out in this inquiry. I think that is very important.

Ms Forrest - If you substitute that honourable member in, it does not stop a member being substituted in.

Mr DEAN - There is nothing to stop any of that. You can do whatever you want and we can set it up for committee B and committee A could do it, of course you could. The fact is I believe that a select committee is the best suited in all the circumstances to conduct this inquiry expeditiously. If this matter is determined today and supported it would be a fairly quick matter to set it up. I would not envisage that it would commence this year and I do not think that would be reasonable, but I would suggest it would commence probably early next year.

Ms Forrest - Why wouldn't you leave this for a sessional committee then if you are not going to do anything this year with it?

Mr DEAN - Because I believe a select committee is more appropriate to hear the matter, that is the reason for it, and to get the right personnel on it and to be a part of it. I believe that four members is adequate for the purposes of conducting the investigation into this matter.

I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and I took a lot of advice as to where I would be best taking the matter. That advice came from very learned people who understand the system very well and have a much better understanding and appreciation of it than I have and their recommendation to me was that the best course at this stage was for a select committee to undertake the investigation and the inquiry.

Ms Forrest - Who was that?

Mr DEAN - That was the advice that I received from those very professional people, and I am accepting that advice on what I understand of the whole thing and with my background on it as well. I believe it is the best course of action in all the circumstances.

I would ask members to think about that. Certainly the sessional committee, the PAC, select committees, there are so many of them that could establish and set up an inquiry into this matter moving forward. The fact is it needs to be done and it needs to be done as quickly as is possible in all the circumstances. A sessional committee set up now is not going to start, I would suggest, until after Christmas as we are very close to the end of the sitting year.

I would ask members to address their minds to all of those things. The PAC is in the main dealing with financial issues and other issues around finance. As I have said, this is just one very small part of this process moving forward and it is very difficult to get the PAC - a joint House committee - moving and moving quickly on any inquiry. There is always difficulty in bringing all of the members together to move the matters forward. That is the reason that I am supporting and asking the members around this table to support the select committee inquiry in relation to this matter.

I will just touch on one or two other things. The position has already been raised about other select committees that we have attempted to set up. I can go a bit further with the Tamar and Esk River estuaries, but I am not certain on that, I think there was some concern with the Government in relation to the setting up of that committee identifying to us that they could provide us with all the answers that we needed and there was no need to set it up.

Ms Thorp - We're responsible for money.

Mr DEAN - We know very well what that inquiry established at the end of the day. It brought out evidence and information that was not thought of by anybody and not even us at that time and very clearly it demonstrated the value in setting up a committee for that inquiry.

The mental health one was a good one where the Government very strongly objected to that committee being set up on the basis that they were already doing their own investigations and that they were going to bring forward a new mental health act and therefore it was an absolute waste of time. That was the information that was given when we were trying to set that committee up and we know very well that committee also came out with many wonderful suggestions and wonderful recommendations. I am not quite sure where that is at now but I think we are still waiting for that mental health act to come in and this is three years later.

Ms Forrest - I met a key stakeholder in the lift the other day who could not put any more light on it either, even though I tried to nail him into the lift. But it didn't work. I did my best.

Mr DEAN - There you go.

Ms Forrest - It has gone out for consultation.

Mr DEAN - We were told that that act would be signed off and would be delivered to us and brought into the Chamber fairly shortly thereafter but it is still not in.

Madam President, I would ask members to address their minds to all of those issues. I could go through other matters that have been raised but I do not think in the circumstances there is any need to do that. I have covered the membership. I have covered the finance situation. If I were to accept the position of the minister in this situation, we would never want another inquiry ever by anybody, either by a select committee, a sessional committee or by the PAC or anybody else, because the Government would provide us with all the answers that we need. We know very well that they will provide us with the information they want us to have and it is normally the other information that we need to have and get.

Ms Thorp - Oh, Madam President, I think my integrity is being impugned here.

Mr DEAN - No, it is not being impugned at all. I am saying there is always a lot of other information and evidence out there that is not known by the Government, not known by other people, that an inquiry will bring out.

Mr Harriss - They are here to help, aren't they.

Mr DEAN - Of course they are here to help; we know that. They are very helpful and they continue to be very helpful and no doubt will do so into the future.

Madam President, in conclusion, I do urge members to think about this matter very seriously. There is an abundance of information before you, in my opinion, to establish the setting up of this select committee. The select committee, as I said, has been chosen because of certain expertise - and it is not being disrespectful of any other member at all - but it was certainly necessary to have legal input into that committee, in my opinion, and members had other knowledge in a number of different areas.

Ms Thorp - Why is the honourable member for Pembroke no longer on it?

Mr DEAN - The member for Pembroke perhaps could explain that. It is not for me to.

Mr Parkinson - She is a very busy lady.

Madam PRESIDENT - Order.

Dr Goodwin - Through you, Madam President - it is a conflict of interest because I worked in the department at the time.

Mr DEAN - I did not know whether the member wanted me to mention that but it is clearly what it was; a conflict of interest. I raised that with the member.

Dr Goodwin - I had nothing to do with the boat but I was in the department at the time.

Mr DEAN - I did ask the member at the time I approached her to be on this committee because she would have quite obviously brought a huge amount of benefit and knowledge to this committee; there is no doubt about that. What I did say to her at the time was there could be a conflict of interest and perhaps she might want to consider that. That is the reason for it; no other reason, Madam President. It is not that the member did not agree or believe that there should be an inquiry. Had she thought that, I think she would have spoken.

The Council divided -


AYES 11 NOES 3

Mr Dean Mr Aird
Mr Finch Mr Parkinson
Ms Forrest Ms Thorp (Teller)
Mr Gaffney
Dr Goodwin
Mr Hall
Mr Harriss (Teller)
Ms Rattray
Mrs Taylor
Mr Wilkinson
Mr Wing

Motion so agreed to.