WONG: Why was this not something
Mr Gaetjens looked at? How it looks I’ll put to you, and you can deny it,
but it looks like the investigation was kept deliberately narrow so as to
protect the PM and his office CORMANN: Well that’s not right.
That is your political assertion and it is just that. WONG: It’s just there’s all this evidence
that they didn’t look at. CORMANN: Because there was a very specific
issue at hand, obviously. WONG: Of course – how do we frame up
Senator McKenzie not the PM? CORMANN: That is completely and utterly
wrong and it’s inconsistent. WONG: Every spreadsheet is given to him. Had anyone in the PM’s office seen it? FOSTER: I don’t know the answer to that Senator. WONG: Well you wouldn’t know because
no one asked them that question, did they? FOSTER: Senator, we weren’t exploring the PM’s office’s role, we were looking at Senator McKenzie’s… WONG: Thank you for that evidence.
You weren’t exploring the PM’s office’s role. CORMANN: It was very clear what this
exercise was about. WONG: Very clear. CORMANN: It was assessing complaints with
the statement of ministerial standards. WONG: On this we can agree Ms Foster.
You were not asked to explore the PM’s role and Mr Gaetjens
certainly didn’t want to. CORMANN: No, that is actually an
inappropriate reflection on a senior officer. I would ask you to withdraw.
Mr Gaetjens appropriately fulfilled the role and the responsibility of the PM. WONG: You’re very touchy, aren’t you? You are a man of some credibility.
It is utterly corrupt. CORMANN: Quite frankly, that is a
ridiculous assertion to make. WONG: No it is not. It is not.
Well then direct them to come to the table with those records.
You know what we’re asking about. You are hiding this information because
it shows the PM is up to his neck in this corrupt sports rorts program.