Page 199 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 16 February 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
ensure that we do not unreasonably tarnish the reputations of public officials or other members of the community.
The allegations that Mrs Dunne has made in the motion today have, I believe, damaged the reputation of the commissioner. They are not well founded and do not assist outcomes for children and young people or staff from this Bimberi inquiry. I am satisfied that, at all times throughout his dealings with Mrs Dunne, the commissioner acted in good faith and genuinely attempted to answer Mrs Dunne’s questions fully and frankly. This did involve an error on his part. In effect, that did little more than show that he misunderstood Mrs Dunne’s understanding of the matter. This mistake would have been of no substantive consequence, but Mrs Dunne did then take that public. I believe that, as she said, she had written off to the Attorney-General. My view is that she should have waited for that process to have been concluded, and had a response, before she made this issue public.
At the end of all of that, I would say that I note in Mr Corbell’s amendment his expression of confidence in Mr Roy to continue in his role as commissioner and also to lead the inquiry. Again, I express that the ACT Greens have full confidence in the commissioner to carry out these responsibilities. He is highly skilled; he has a great team behind him. I really hope that this inquiry is allowed to proceed without further interference.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (3.55): This is about integrity, and the amendment that Mr Corbell has moved is about integrity. When it comes to integrity, I will back Vicki Dunne’s integrity over Simon Corbell’s integrity any day. Mrs Dunne has conducted herself in a completely appropriate and diligent manner on behalf of particularly the staff but also the residents of Bimberi. That is what Mrs Dunne has done. For Mr Corbell to come forward with this completely dishonest amendment and expect the support of the Assembly is a reflection on his character. It is a reflection on who he is, not on Mrs Dunne. We only have to look at the dishonesty in the words of the motion itself to look at his character and his motivations.
Mr Corbell makes a number of claims which are completely false. Mrs Dunne has dealt with those in her response. He is claiming that she should be censured because she is saying things that would not otherwise be said—as he terms it, hiding in cowards castle. There is only one coward in here and he has just walked out. There is only one person who has behaved in a cowardly manner. Mrs Dunne has been prepared to say these things inside and outside the chamber because they are true.
Let us look at the conduct of the shadow attorney-general. Let us compare the conduct of Mrs Dunne in this matter with that of Mr Corbell. Let us put them next to each other. We have got the chain of events. Mrs Dunne has given a detailed chain of events that demonstrates why Mrs Dunne’s motion should be supported today. We have the staff member sending the text message, which is detailed here. Then we have Mrs Dunne giving every opportunity for a response from the commissioner. On 14 December, having received this message on the 9th, she wrote to the commissioner raising the matter and asking for his version of events.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video