Page 727 - Week 02 - Thursday, 23 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I want to turn to Mrs Dunne’s dissenting comments because there are a couple of pieces in there that cause me concern. Mrs Dunne said in paragraph 11.1 that she is concerned that issues raised in evidence were minimised or ignored in the final report. I find that objectionable, quite frankly. She has said now that there were quite clearly different views, and that the conversations between committee members were quite professional and amiable. There was nothing that was minimised in our discussions. There was nothing in there which was ignored in the final report. If something has been missed, I suggest that Mrs Dunne might like to take some responsibility for that, because she is the one who produced the chair’s draft report in the first place. Ms Hunter and I put on the table the things that we felt were important. So I find that quite objectionable.
She says in paragraph 11.3:
With the exception of the Australian Federal Police, whose approach, being based on available intelligence and direct experience of enforcement, is more practical than ideological …
I do not know where she finds the basis for that. Is she suggesting that the AFP in their evidence did not bring a certain bias towards it? If so, I would like to see the evidence to support that. If she is saying the opposite, I would like to see the evidence to support that. I do not think that particular statement was helpful at all.
She also says that the opponents—and, funnily enough, I agree with her—of legalised prostitution were basing their position on activities in other jurisdictions. Those other jurisdictions are not here, and I do not see the relevance.
I also take issue very particularly with paragraph 11.4. Mrs Dunne suggests that it was inappropriate that members of the committee met with and in some cases held media events with submitters and witnesses before the inquiry. While she does not believe these incidents materially affected deliberations, she thinks it is unfortunate. I thank the Scarlet Alliance for coming to my office and giving me their views straight up, in the same way that I thank the Australian Christian Lobby for coming to my office and giving me their information straight up. Both of them had an influence on where I was going. It is quite appropriate for that to happen, provided that there is no information gain from me to them.
I contrast that with Mrs Dunne’s invitation to members to go to a film called Nefarious, which was projecting a particular view by the ACL. The invitation came out before this report was tabled. I found that just as concerning.
The last thing that I want to say about the report—I will leave the other matters for Ms Hunter to raise—is to thank all of those people who made submissions, particularly those individuals whose courage and bravery helped us to develop such an understanding of the issues at hand. I thought their courage and bravery were brilliant. Finally, I would like to thank committee members and also Dr Brian Lloyd for treading a very difficult line and coming up with a very fine report.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video