Page 1357 - Week 04 - Thursday, 4 April 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In making my proposal, I have offered some suggested points that are relevant. Like the wider social context, however, in the end it is up to the committee. But, importantly, in proposing the referral, I have asked the Assembly to support a process that protects the privacy of individuals, as the Assembly is entitled to do under the standing orders. What Mrs Dunne just read out to us makes it clear that the Assembly does have a role in that regard.
But, importantly, in proposing the referral, I remain concerned about negative consequences for individual children, their families, staff and schools of being identified in evidence or during hearings and the public attention. It would likely exacerbate what are already difficult circumstances. In these circumstances, there are often multiple parties to an incident who could be identified without consent even if they are not named. This is not irregular, particularly when working with children. The committee, at the end of the day, remains in control over what might identify individuals or schools.
If it is the case that, in the words of Ms Lee, “This process is never, and will never be, about demonising schools,” again I am baffled by her response to my motion today. Ms Lee has said—indeed, she said this on the radio and the presenters referred to it as perhaps a bipartisan position—that she accepts my proposal. I continue to remain baffled about her response today.
To clarify again, I will not agree to the identification of innocent people, vulnerable children who have no real say about whether their names or schools are publicly hung out for cheap political points. That is not something that I would support. My position has firmed on this as I have had conversations over the last couple of weeks with numerous people. Ms Lee and I spoke on ABC radio. Martin Fisk from Menslink was there. He talked about the matter of a permanent social media tattoo, that this is permanent; people live with this for the rest of their lives. When these sensitive matters are shared around the place, which they are, lots of people are identified and it is permanently on the public record.
Secondly, I spoke with the Children and Young People Commissioner, as did Mr Rattenbury, to seek some reassurance from her that perhaps this was the best way to remove as much risk as possible. It does not remove all the risk. I accept that, but it removes as much as possible. In some ways it is possibly the best way to go. That conversation firmed up my position as well. She said to me, as she did to Mr Rattenbury, that if the committee was open to this—this will be a decision for the committee—she was prepared to support it as an independent oversight. That is what the commissioner is there for. I guess it will be up to the committee to decide whether or not they take up her offer.
I cannot believe that anybody in this place would be interested in traumatising or retraumatising vulnerable people through a public naming and shaming exercise. That is what I have always tried to avoid, every step of the way, through any kind of inquiry process or as we deal with this very sensitive issue. My motion attempts to avoid that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video