Page 432 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 18 February 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The men are upset they were expected to take [him] into schools without being told of his conviction. They say they would not have accompanied him or allowed him to have contact with teenage school boys if they had known. They knew he was the education minister’s son, but the information wasn’t routinely divulged to schools. They said [he] should have been referred to Menslink’s counselling program, not been used as a role model for teenage boys.
Based on these unlawful visits to schools, the CEO of Menslink, who was fully aware of the individual’s circumstances, then wrote a reference for the courts that was used as evidence in his sentencing hearings, at the request of the minister. Let me again quote:
Chief executive … did know about [his] court case—he had written a reference for him at his court appearance in April, and wrote another in October for sentencing. [His] work with Menslink and the … reference helped him escape jail, the judge explicitly pointing to it.
Menslink has been in part funded by the education directorate. The minister launched the silence is deadly program and the minister gave Menslink an award for the silence is deadly program. The conflict of interest and the benefit to a family member—a serious breach of the ministerial and members code of conduct—are glaring.
It is a tragedy that Menslink has been torn apart by these events. I have spoken with staff and board members and they are aghast at how this all came to pass. People dedicated to looking after young men feel that they were misled and have broken the law because they were not told the truth.
The parents of schoolchildren and staff at schools also deserve answers. The protection of our schoolchildren is paramount, and that is why we have the working with vulnerable people clearances. As a result of these events schoolchildren have been exposed to an offender, which both Menslink and school headmasters have said was not appropriate and was not lawful. I have spoken with parents who do not want an individual who robbed a person at knifepoint presented to impressionable teenagers as a role model.
What was said to our children? According to the reference, the discussion was about a spiral into drugs and a crime that was committed. Given the events outlined and the significant conflict of interest, the government’s dismissal of this as simply an administrative oversight is manifestly inadequate.
I ask: is it the norm for offenders to unlawfully interact with schoolchildren and be provided with a reference for the courts based on that interaction at the minister’s behest, or was this a special case? If it is the norm, that is unacceptable. If this was a special case, this was unacceptable. Either scenario, either explanation, is unacceptable.
As Chief Minister, Andrew Barr must always put schoolchildren first. He must act to restore the damage to Menslink’s reputation, and he must act to assure parents that the education minister has not acted improperly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video