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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 12 Hansard (24 November) . . Page.. 3563 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

officers of the ACT Public Service. Did those opposite move a motion of no confidence in me as a consequence of that conclusion reached by the coroner? Not on your nelly!

There has never been any suggestion that I, as the Minister responsible for Quamby, should step down or take personal responsibility for the breakdown of management at the youth detention facility. Indeed, both Mr Wood and Mr Hargreaves very graciously acknowledged the very significant improvements that my department and I had initiated at that place, and I thank them for that. I think that it was most appropriate. That situation was very different from the one in which we find ourselves today.

Members will also recall that there have been two deaths in recent times at the Belconnen Remand Centre. A coronial inquest into the first death concluded some time ago. Indeed, it concluded some time prior to Michael Somes' inquest into the Quamby death. Coroner Michael Somes was also involved in the BRC matter. He found in the BRC inquest a litany of systemic problems within ACT Corrective Services which included problems of management of the BRC and in the way staff performed their duties. He found an unhealthy work culture had developed at that place.

Have members of the Opposition called for my colleague the Attorney-General to resign over the failings of these officers? No, of course, not. Have they called for his resignation over the second death at BRC? Of course not. Nor would such a call be warranted for him to take personal responsibility for the breakdown of management at the BRC.

Mr Speaker, the principle of ministerial responsibility must be applied in a uniform way and on a consistent basis. Government cannot function if the Assembly applies the principle on a selective basis. Both coronial inquests have identified shortcomings in the administration of a public facility or program. There is criticism of process in these three inquest reports, with individuals who were seen by both coroners to have particular responsibility for performing certain functions as part of their duties being severely criticised for their failings, and rightly so.

However, there is a glaring difference as to how this Assembly has treated these three so similar reports. In the case of Quamby, the coroner recommended that action be taken, where still relevant, to dismiss certain staff. There were five staff whose dismissal he recommended. Four had already left. Disciplinary action is occurring in relation to the one still in the service. In the BRC matter, I am advised that the coroner recommended that three staff be charged with perjury and that two be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice. He recommended that four staff be dismissed. At the time of that conclusion being reached by the coroner, I think the four staff had already left the service.

In the case of the matter before us today, the coroner has recommended that charges be laid against certain individuals. Did the Leader of the Opposition or any other member of the Assembly suggest that Mr Humphries or I should resign because of the shortcomings of some staff in our departments? Of course not. Why, then, is Mr Stanhope suggesting that the Assembly find a lack of confidence in the Chief Minister? There can be only one reason. This is part of a concerted campaign by the

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