Page 3382 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Finally, I would like to formally extend once again my own and the Greens’ condolences to the family for their loss. It is an old, but true, saying that the only way past grief is through it, and I do hope that today’s discussion can provide some sense of justice alongside the recent events so that family’s pain can be somewhat minimised.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (4.34): There are a number of issues that need to be addressed. I think the first one is that the minister has indicated, while Mr Hanson was talking, that they would not be releasing public information or further information. Part of the problem when something goes wrong is that we then overreact and, after so much information being released in an inappropriate way, we then go to the other extreme of releasing no information. You have to question the public health consequences of releasing no information.
If people were in contact with a victim or somebody who had worked with the victim, or a family member or close friend, or people who lived in the same street, it is appropriate that those who have been at risk be informed. So I would ask—and I am sure we would all give the minister leave to speak again—that she tell us how that information will now be made public.
What we do not want to see is an overreaction to the mistakes of the first incident which may cause even greater harm, because it is very important, in the sense of the pandemic, as it faces the ACT, Australia and the world, that the flow of appropriate information at appropriate times is maintained. If the minister wants to elaborate on that, I am sure that we would give her the opportunity to speak again.
The problem for the family, as expressed in their statement, is the feeling they have of the lack of respect of officials and the process for their needs at a time of great distress. I add my condolences to the family, as others have here today. It is very hard when you lose a loved one. To gain extra information from an unexpected source must be incredibly distressing.
But the minister said in her speech that she saw no benefit in further apology. Clearly, the family sees it of some benefit.
Ms Gallagher: No. I said further public discussion.
MR SMYTH: Sorry, no. She saw no benefit in a public apology. The family seemed to indicate in the document that they have supplied that they actually do see some benefit. I think the case can be made that because so much of this was actually played out in the public arena—whether that was the intention or not, that is where it has been played out—it would be an appropriate place to make an apology.
The minister said that the statements made by Dr Charles Guest on the news on 15 August were in fact the same apology just being reiterated. The problem for the family is that they thought the original apology was not appropriate and did not cover the areas that they had raised. Indeed, in their document they say:
This bandaid apology was indicative of the insincere correspondence and handling of our father’s death.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .