Page 185 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 16 February 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I need to point out to members that when I brought this matter to the Assembly in December I spoke about our duty, the duty of the government and the duty of this Assembly, to guarantee the safety and security of some of the most vulnerable people in our community, the most vulnerable and most at-risk people in our community, and those who care for them.
The visual of having the Children and Young People Commissioner conducting this inquiry means that the commitment of the Assembly has been completely lost on the staff. They think it is all about the kids and that they do not have a place in this inquiry. This is another reason why the current inquiry should be disbanded and put into the hands of someone who is trusted by all parties involved.
Trust was far from the mind of the Attorney-General, the minister responsible for the Children and Young People Commissioner, when he was dealing with the issues raised. After I wrote to him on 4 February, the minister issued a media statement in response to that letter, and he said a number of very interesting things. Firstly, he said that he had reviewed the claims made by the opposition and he had done that reviewing by talking to the commissioner and having a discussion with the Department of Justice and Community Safety. But he brought no evidence that he had given any serious consideration to the material, the substantial material which I have tabled here today.
Secondly, the attorney said that he was completely satisfied that the commissioner had acted appropriately and with due regard for the reputation and privacy of those who had contacted him. Again I question whether the attorney actually read the correspondence, because the correspondence clearly brings that into question.
Further, the attorney said that “the opposition have manufactured their claims”. Is the minister assuming that I whiled away my holiday break forging letters from the Children and Young People Commissioner? I wonder if he even glanced at the email sent to the commissioner by X expressing disappointment at the commissioner’s behaviour, now on two separate occasions, of revealing X’s identity. I doubt it.
The attorney also stated in a media interview:
The name of the person has not been disclosed to the broader community, and indeed the commissioner only mentioned the name of the individual to Mrs Dunne because he understood Mrs Dunne was aware of the identity of the individual already.
This is a disgraceful comment that shows that the first law officer does not have even the most modest, most basic, grasp of legal concepts. The first law officer has just created a new doctrine of confidentiality. The Corbell doctrine is that confidentiality is maintained if you only tell a small number of people or if you assume that you are telling somebody something that they already know.
Here we have an informant who went to considerable lengths, for very good private and personal reasons, to protect their identity because they wanted to do something to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video