Page 3139 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 16 September 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Lastly—and on this I am also very clear—there are serious questions about the directorate’s response to the structure. The time line that has been publicly released shows that central office was notified of the structure but that the matter was not escalated for over a week. I am convinced there must be a formal examination of how this was possible in the directorate that has such a strong and positive approach to supporting all students to achieve their best and whose culture should be that everybody matters. Having been recently briefed by the director-general personally on these matters, I am similarly convinced that she takes this responsibility with the seriousness it deserves. The directorate is quite rightly held in high regard and must do all it can to repair whatever was broken in the system.
There has been a failure of decision making that will require time and consistency of approach to remedy. It will also take time for the community at large to make sense of this issue and to in part regain the trust of parents and carers. I think today’s motion, the subsequent amendment and the response of Minister Burch during question time and in her speech today show an acceptance that this is not something that can be pushed away or responded to defensively. The information that is now on the public record should go towards rebuilding the trust that is needed when it comes to the care of our children.
Let me turn specifically to some of the matters in both the original motion and the amendment put forward. I have examined both of them quite carefully and have looked to see that the issues raised by Mr Doszpot are being addressed in a way that provides clarity of public information, which is important here. Mr Doszpot has asked that a chronology of events be provided. It is clear that a chronology of events since the construction of the structure, excluding references to identifying information, has been provided in a publicly available document. It is important to reflect on the fact that, whilst Mr Doszpot is suggesting that there is a shortage of information, a summary of the investigation outcomes, reference to the scope of the investigation and a chronology of events have been publicly provided. That goes a long way to providing the information that is warranted.
We have to ask: what is the desired outcome here? Is it to drag every sordid detail into the public domain or is it to reassure ourselves that a thorough investigation has been conducted—
Mr Doszpot: Is publishing the terms of reference sordid detail?
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Doszpot!
MR RATTENBURY: Mr Doszpot’s rudeness in this chamber escalates by the day. Mr Doszpot was heard in silence. Every other person that has spoken in this place, except for Mr Coe, has been interjected on by Mr Doszpot. His rudeness in this place never ceases to amaze me.
Returning to the matters at hand, the question is: what are we trying to achieve here? It is important that we get to the bottom of how this happened and what steps are being taken to ensure that it does not happen in the future.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video