Page 1278 - Week 05 - Thursday, 31 May 2007

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

---

mislead.” That is why Mrs Dunne brought it to Mr Barr’s attention yesterday and gave him the opportunity to correct the record.

This is an important issue about getting the facts on the table. The minister may laugh. We have seen the government’s attitude to this with their churlish amendment. We have seen the government’s attitude to this serious issue. The minister may laugh, but we do have the opportunity to put the facts on the table.

The correct answer would have been, “Well, incidents have been brought to my attention; it has been investigated and this was found. It is an internal investigation.” Mr Barr led the Assembly to believe that nothing had been brought to his attention—that there was no evidence of a flagrant breach, and that no evidence that the police had not been called in these circumstances had been brought to his attention. It had. There was the evidence of the people closest to the incident, apart from the person who was assaulted—the parents. The parents brought it to his attention. But Mr Barr says to us that that does not matter, that that is not really bringing it to his attention and that it only matters if his departmental staff bring it to his attention or say, “This is the end result of this investigation.”

I do not accept that, and Mrs Dunne does not accept that. That is why she has brought this motion on. It is because that answer was misleading. It suggested that this incident had not been brought to his attention when it clearly had—when we have documentary evidence that says that it was brought to his attention. He should have said that. He should have given us some of the words that he has given us today in responding to this censure motion; then we never would have seen the censure motion come forward.

This is why this censure motion should be supported. It is a clear case. It could have easily been fixed at 10.30 this morning. It was not. That is why it is being brought forward; that is why it should be supported.

Motion (by Mr Corbell) proposed:

That the question be now put.

The Assembly voted—

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the motion be agreed to.

---

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