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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Thursday, 12 February 2004) . . Page.. 322 ..

will be taken. If the process fails to meet expectations, we will have a right to express our disappointment.

We should now cease raking over this matter in the chamber. I will go further and say that harping on about the matter only adds to the damage that has already been done by the wide publicity the matter has received and the rash of comment—some of it ill-advised and no doubt for personal or political gain—that the publicity has attracted. The damage I am referring to is not damage to the government; they should be big enough to wear that if they have to. I am referring to the steady damage that is being done to those courageous and selfless souls in the community who undertake the work of caring for and fostering children whose lives have already been marked by sadness, sometimes terribly so.

The debt we as a community owe those people is greater than we will ever be able to repay. I have it directly from within the community of carers and fosterers that the ongoing debate has sparked a mounting and genuine concern that if the beat-up continues it will erode confidence in foster care and make it even more difficult to attract people who are willing to undertake what is in many ways a thankless task.

While we continue to circle this subject, carping and worrying it to death in a self-serving way, we are in danger of forgetting that, by continuing this debate at this time, we are not doing any good for those dedicated, brave and true people involved with fostering caring. In fact, it is harming them. It is allowing stigma to grow and confidence to fall. It is making their task harder than it already is, and it is downright unfair. So if we have a heart, let’s listen to it and agree to stop perpetuating this pointless debate now and wait for the investigation to run its course.

During an interview that Mike Jeffreys from 2CC conducted with me yesterday morning, I was rather puzzled about a number of issues. On the child protection issue he referred to a ministerial staffer and whether that ministerial staffer should be sacked. Would I support such a thing, and would I support a censure put forward by the opposition, given that I am a friend of Katy Gallagher?

I was rather surprised by both these things. Firstly, I was stunned that a radio announcer would mention the name of a staffer. Did I wonder who gave him that little titbit? It had the smell of a Liberal all over it. I thought, “I have no comment to make,” and I said, “If a staffer is found to be negligent, that’s up to the office to decide.” But I found it rather shocking that that would be raised, given that there is a protocol—so I have been educated in this place—that staffers are off limits. It is a shame that the ones that actually do harm to this place never get into trouble and those that go about their business in a dedicated and quiet way are mentioned during a radio interview.

Mr Jeffreys asked whether I would support a censure motion put forward by the opposition, given that I am a friend of the minister. I mentioned that I have many friends in this place but, irrespective of my friendship with this person, whom I consider to have very high morals, self-esteem and integrity, I would never compromise my integrity or the welfare of the community for anybody, including a friend. One of the reasons I sit in this part of the chamber is that I was not prepared to condone a cover-up.

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