Page 1027 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 30 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Barr: Don’t you pay attention to your own questions?
MR CORBELL: But there is no link. There is no link.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Minister, excuse me a second. Stop the clock. Minister Barr, I cannot ask the members of the opposition to cease being unruly if you are going to help them out. Minister Corbell, the floor is yours.
MR CORBELL: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The second allegation is in relation to the concerns raised by the former visual arts teacher at Bimberi. These concerns raised by that teacher are why this inquiry is occurring. That is why we are conducting this inquiry—to understand what these issues are—and I would draw to members’ attention the fact that that teacher has said in her open letter in the Canberra Times yesterday:
… the current inquiries are the best chance we have to shine a light into all the dark corners of Bimberi, systematically address the abuses and problems that exist and to answer some compelling questions.
So the teacher herself has said that this inquiry by Mr Roy, by the Human Rights Commission, is the best chance we have to get to the bottom of this—and the government agrees. So why do the opposition continue with their attempt to undermine this inquiry?
Finally, we have the allegations in relation to the so-called coaching of staff by officials of the department. The minister has already tabled a detailed letter outlining the circumstances of the meeting in question and why matters were phrased in the way that they have been. It is quite clear that at no stage was any attempt made to coach staff—only to provide staff with avenues for support in what can be a daunting and difficult exercise for public servants.
There are no grounds to change the process of the inquiry and the government will not be supporting the amendments from the Greens today. (Time expired.)
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (11.09): Mr Corbell read a selective quote that the government has latched onto from Trish McEwan. But he failed to read the other bits by Trish McEwan. She said: “I have hopes for this inquiry. I thought we’d get into all those dark corners.” But what did she go on to say? She said: “It concerns me that I naively had believed that a human rights review would be independent from any influence from government.” Let me read that again: “It concerns me that I naively had believed”—“I had believed”; so obviously does not have that belief now—“that a human rights review would be independent from any influence from government. And that is why I have always supported the review.”
That is why. But now she admits that she was naive. She goes on to say, “I am still encouraged, and I would still like to believe, that the review process will be successful in bringing truth to light at the centre, but I’m not confident that adults and workers will freely contribute to that review.” Why not? Because it is being influenced by the government.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video