Page 3838 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 24 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The Human Rights Commission report makes it quite clear that:
A number of serious allegations were reported in the … Assembly and media immediately before and during the course of the Review. The Commission was also informed of these and other allegations from participants … CSD provided the Commission with details of the background and subsequent investigations into critical incidents, including whether they were subject to external scrutiny. In the most part, the Commission was satisfied with the level of scrutiny provided by the other external agencies to these incidents. However, they do highlight some issues of concern that we believe warrant changes to policies and practice, and which are discussed in the report.
In addition, there are always a range of internal and external avenues for any staff member or child or young person to register a complain to be investigated and responded to. Many of these processes are governed by legislation, and they include the Official Visitor, Public Advocate, the Human Rights Commission, the Commissioner for Children and Young People and the Ombudsman.
For those staff who were not prepared to make a formal complaint to the commission or through another external oversight body, they were still able to make contributions to the Bimberi review team about alleged bullying so that systematic issues could be reviewed and recommendations made.
Ample opportunity was provided to anyone with concerns to write a submission to the Human Rights Commission review team or to meet with them. And I have instructed staff from the directorate to fully cooperate with the review. Paragraph 1.5.15 of the report makes it quite clear that:
Throughout the Review, the Commission operated under strict legislative obligations to protect people who provided information to the Review, including, in particular, s. 99 of the HRC Act. The identity of participants, and information provided to the Commission, was not divulged without the written consent of participants, or unless required by another law.
I note that the report states:
The Commission also received a number of complaints pursuant to the HRC Act.
This makes it quite clear that there were formal complaints made during the course of this review and they were or are being investigated under the commission’s legislative framework.
Mrs Dunne’s comments in the media this morning show a flagrant disregard for the confidential treatment of complaints handling by an independent statutory authority. Mrs Dunne imputes that, because the outcomes of the individual complaints were not outlined in the report, they were not dealt with, and this is just simply not true. The comments by Mrs Dunne that the Human Rights Commission have tried to bury this matter are simply appalling. For a member of this place to show such outright contempt for a statutory body is shameful.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video