Page 204 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 16 February 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
would continue to participate in the review. I wonder how she feels about your ongoing antics in this, Mrs Dunne. Might I also say that staff are concerned about the argy-bargy that Mrs Dunne seems to be creating about this because they want to be part of this review. Mrs Dunne has not conducted herself well in relation to this motion. She has displayed a total disregard for the Children and Young People Commissioner. Clearly, I will not be supporting her. I would ask the Assembly to support the amendment by Mr Corbell.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (4.12): This is a very important issue, and the issue has flushed out both from the Greens and the government some very, very interesting positions. Mr Corbell’s opening statement is that you cannot question a statutory officer. Where does it say that in the statutory appointments act? Where does it say in the law that these people are above being questioned? If this place cannot question a statutory officer then who can? Is it just the realm of ministers? Is it the realm of the executive? I do not know, because I am not sure where that appears in the law. I am not sure when that convention came into place.
The problem for the commissioner now is that, because of Mr Corbell’s inadequate inquiry, a cloud actually hangs over the commissioner. Saying, “I’ve have had a chat with and had an okay from the department that things are okay,” is not the way the first law officer should conduct himself. This is compounded by Ms Hunter’s approach, which is to say in her speech of inconsistencies that, to protect those who give confidential information, there are penalties for those that release names or information. Well, that name and that information has been released, so these penalties apply to the commissioner. Mrs Dunne knows that person’s name now, the staff member that opened the letter knows that name now, and the supervisor of that person knows who that person is now because information was given to the supervisor that allowed the identification of X. Ms Hunter says—
Mr Corbell: That’s not true.
MR SMYTH: Mr Corbell says it is not true. Everything is not true. It is time to remind the Assembly that Mr Corbell is the person who was censured on 24 June for persistently and wilfully misleading the Assembly on a number of issues and has been censured three or four times for similar offences. From the man who was censured for persistently and wilfully misleading the Assembly, we hear mumbled, “Not true.” Well, it is true. X was identified because of material released. We have got inconsistencies from Ms Hunter, who got this new dictum from Mr Corbell that these people are now above the law, and, because of his failed inquiry, there is a cloud over the commissioner.
Ms Hunter then goes on to say, “It’s appropriate to leave this person here because he’ll be here after the inquiry is finished to make sure it’s implemented.” He was actually there before the inquiry started. He is the person charged with looking at these issues and keeping an eye on them. You have to ask: what has he done in the two years since Bimberi was opened? I will leave it to members to work out for themselves what he has done.
The motion concentrates on getting an answer about what is happening in Bimberi and how best to fix it. Paragraph (4) goes back to our original appeal—that there be a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video