Page 3402 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 17 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I know Ms Hunter mentioned cases in the past where people have been damaged. There was one particular case—and this is in no way suggesting that this would happen in any of the instances that have been outlined here—the Penny Eastman case a number of years ago. That, for me, is a perfect example of why we do not want to go down this track of having a committee inquiry.
The suggestion has been made by Mr Hanson and by the Liberals—and Mr Buchanan has made this suggestion—that Mr Buchanan has had his contract terminated and been returned to his substantive position because he opposed the NSP. There is absolutely no evidence that that is the case. As we know, there is opposition to the NSP amongst other staff in the prison, plus from the union representatives. I think to suggest that that is a reason why this has happened is not correct. That is not the case at all.
I am also very concerned about the motivations behind Mr Hanson doing this. Our motivations have been questioned. I am going to question Mr Hanson’s motivations about this too. This, for me, is very much a situation about willingness to use individuals to serve their own ends. And if we are talking about selling out, if we are talking about hanging someone out to dry, this is an example of that, of being willing to use someone’s personal case to actually make a political point. And that is what is happening here in this situation.
I think that needs to be acknowledged. I know I will get pilloried for saying that, but that is absolutely what is happening here. If we are going to be verballed about what we are trying to achieve here and about somehow wanting to do something broadly and not look at individual’s personal cases, then this is what needs to be looked at with this situation. And that is absolutely what is happening here.
We need to look at what are the proper processes for involving personal cases of people. They need to be given proper protections and, frankly, having the committee process just does not offer that. Yes, they have privilege, but everything goes on the public record. They do not have any legal protections once that happens. What is going to happen to them after that has been in the media or anything else is played out? That is what we should be considering here and that is why we cannot support this today.
I say again that we do very much expect that people should get justice, but it should be done in a way that offers people protection, does not hang them out to dry, does not have to be played out in the public record and absolutely is not for someone else’s benefit. I reiterate: I do find this a very difficult one. I have spoken to Mr Buchanan and I know he feels aggrieved. But he needs to be told what are the proper processes that he can go through. I do hope that someone is actually giving him that assistance because it does not seem like that has happened as yet. I hope it has happened now and that he has a proper process to follow and that he is offered the proper protections that he should have, which a public committee inquiry would not.
Question put:
That Mr Hanson’s amendment be agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video