Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (13 May) . . Page.. 1325 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

The full picture was that it was not just Mr Stefaniak in his office, with a bunch of information before him, going in as a hero to put an end to this dreadful situation. It was Mr Stefaniak, as a member of this Assembly, being questioned, being observed, being asked more questions, being reviewed, being put on notice. Notices of motion are not put on the notice paper for games. They are put there because a large body of the Assembly feels that there is an issue that needs to be dealt with. Whether they come on or not, it seems to me, is not relevant. I as a Minister would pay attention to the fact and say, "My God, something is going on here. Maybe somebody is worried about it". In that context, I think the Ombudsman's commentary is very telling. In that context, knowing that people were worried, it was not acceptable that a seemingly open consultation process had a closed end to it, had an option closed off.

I have no quarrel with the fact that maybe action had to be taken on SWOW, but I have very deep concern whether in that context this action on SWOW should have been taken without due regard to all the issues that were being raised by concerned people who understood very well the troubled nature of many of the students at SWOW and the teachers at SWOW and the history of SWOW. They did not come and lobby us because they hated SWOW. They had a passion and depth of concern for SWOW which were very well grounded. SWOW may well have gone completely off the rails, but students were still being admitted and these concerns were being raised. It was not a secretive process. I think we should go very carefully before we rule out of hand the Minister's responsibility on this.

To that end, we on this side are seriously considering two things. The first is that Mr Osborne is sick and unable to vote on this issue. I think that his vote is a crucial one in this debate. The second is that I think the people need more time to think about this, because we think we have clear evidence that this is very serious and that there was some level of misleading going on. I am foreshadowing that there will be a move to adjourn this debate and to continue it at a later date when people have had more of a chance to look at the evidence again, perhaps get counter affidavits now that we have one set, and more calmly consider the issues concerned.

I have due respect and regard for the fact that a decision was made under very difficult circumstances. I have no quarrel with that. I am not talking about that. We must not get sidetracked by that. The issue at hand is that people in whom we trusted, public servants whom we trusted to do the Minister's bidding, whom we watch and work against in the interests of the community, did not conduct a process that was honourable. This is what the Ombudsman found. I think that the Minister has a great level of responsibility for that and that this house should give it due regard.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hird): I call Mr Kaine.

Mr Berry: Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I move that the debate be adjourned.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Kaine has the call.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .