Page 817 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 9 March 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I welcome the fact that the attorney has made it clear that the report will be released publicly. I do not necessarily accept that that has to be by the particular dates that Ms Lawder has set out. But I welcome the fact that it will be made public because I think it is an important area and one in which all members of the Assembly have an interest. We shall all look at this report closely.
In light of those specific points that are contained in the motion and the responses that have been given by the attorney this morning, I think the points made by Ms Lawder are well covered. I think that the scope is there for people to make those contributions. I think we can see that there is going to be a transparent release of the report. On that basis, I will not be supporting the motion as such, but I do believe the key points Ms Lawder is seeking have been addressed today, and I welcome that fact.
MS LAWDER (Brindabella) (10.27), in reply: I will speak to close the debate today. I cannot overstate the importance of allowing ordinary people—these people who have been through the tremendous ordeals of their families—to tell their stories. Whilst the inquiry is looking at systemic issues, for the average person their own case illustrates systemic issues. It shines a light on what has happened. They do not talk in terms of systemic issues; they talk about the blockages and the challenges that they have faced in their own journey through the care and protection system. I think it is unfortunate that in a way we are hiding behind some bureaucratic language about looking at systemic issues.
The people who contacted my office were not aware that their stories may be considered because the purpose of the inquiry quite clearly states that the review will be conducted in the context of the recent death of Bradyn Dillon. So the people who have contacted me did feel that they may feel excluded. I have written to the Attorney-General on behalf of at least one family asking for them to be included. I believe that they now will be. But when the inquiry was announced it may have been clearer to members of the general public if they had been told that they were able to make individual contributions.
I also received a briefing from the Attorney-General’s office in relation to the inquiry. When I asked whether other cases may be considered, they reiterated to me that the inquiry would be conducted in the context of the recent death of Bradyn Dillon. So perhaps there was some misunderstanding there because when I asked several times about other cases, that was not the response that I got from them—that they may be able to be included. I could not in good faith go back to those families and say yes. What I could say to them is, “I will write to the Attorney-General on your behalf,” which is what I have done.
In talking about time frames, Mr Corbell and Mr Rattenbury on the face of it sound eminently reasonable. But it is a bit like a wolf in sheep’s clothing. They cannot commit because the issues may be complex. I hope that the issues and recommendations will be complex, because it is a very complex matter. We do not need simplistic recommendations.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video