Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 01 Hansard (Tuesday, 9 February 2010) . . Page.. 93 ..


It is the sort of thing that we have come to expect from Mr Corbell. Rather than dealing with the substance of the issue, it is simply attack, attack, attack. In this case he is attacking the chair of the committee, a Greens member of the committee and a Labor member of the committee. The minister stands condemned not only for his appalling management of his portfolio but for his disgraceful attack on the committee members here and when the report was tabled.

MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (4.24): It is interesting today to see the response brought down by the government. It is interesting to note that, of the recommendations, after all the bluster, outrage and anger—the pure, white-hot anger from the Attorney-General when this report was tabled—most of the recommendations of this committee have in fact been agreed to. That needs to be taken into account; that needs to be reflected on.

This committee, which I chair and where I worked with my colleagues Ms Hunter and, at the time, Ms Porter, made a number of recommendations. All but two, by the minister’s own admission, have been agreed. In fact, in his concluding words, the minister says that he agrees with the other two recommendations. Those recommendations were just about the minister reporting to the Assembly on those matters. We can have a debate about whether he should report regularly or whether he should report at the conclusion, but, as things boiled down, the minister and the government have agreed or noted all the recommendations. Some of the recommendations do not relate to the government but relate to committee activities, so they can do nothing more than note those.

It is interesting that the minister at the time took exception to the committee making findings in relation to our investigations. He was in high dudgeon: “How dare they make findings!” He has spent a lot of time in his response and in his remarks commenting on those findings. It is interesting, when you go through the remarks, to see that there is very little substance in the rejection of those findings. Most of the findings he rejects, but it is basically, “We disagree; we’re the government and I’m Simon Corbell, and I’m right and you’re wrong,” which is not a very edifying way to behave.

Mr Corbell: Do you stand by finding 22?

MRS DUNNE: I would like to put on the record that I do stand by the work done by the committee, which I am proud to chair.

I would like to make some comments on some of the findings, but I would also like the opportunity to absorb some of these findings, and I may at a later stage seek the leave of the Assembly to comment further. I will draw members’ attention to finding 19, which says:

Only one Factory Acceptance Test (FAT) was undertaken, in February 2008, on the security system despite some concerns that more work was needed. The FAT was not repeated because of concerns about slipping deadlines.

The government comes back and says:

The Government disagrees with the finding. There were two FATs.


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video