Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, , 7:19:09 to 7:21:01
Discussion regarding the public apology to Gina Rinehart, the internal vetting process, and the role of program judges in expressing distaste for the segment.
Topics: Integrity, Legal profession
Speakers: Hugh Marks, Senator The Hon Sarah Henderson, Unknown Speaker
Uh have you apologised personally to Mrs. Reinhardt?
Um Senator, I tried to contact Ms. Reinhardt, but she was not she would not make herself available.
Did you write to her expressing or conveying an apology?
Uh Senator, I thought the public apology was the correct step to take.
So no private correspondence at all.
I've not been asked for a private apology. Um I think the public apology uh was in general in these matters the appropriate step to take private apologies are a lesser standard, I would argue.
All right. prior to uh and in fact I think um yeah, prior to that Ombudsman decision being made. Mr. Marks.
Yes, I think we'll come back. I think Senator what was asked was what was the process, how was it followed, what were the decisions that were made, and what steps in that process weren't followed or weren't elevated? We'll come back with that information.
And could you also please add to the list the internal correspondence in relation to the vetting and the approval?
We'll see what we can provide, Senator on that.
Did you have any communications at all with the Ombudsman in relation to this complaint or these complaints?
As in.
Did you have any or anyone in your team have any correspondence or concludes?
No, Senator, it's important when an ombudsman's process starts, the Ombudsman is independent of the organisation and needs to conduct their work independently of management. I think that's a very important part of the the way the organisation works.