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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 05 Hansard (Tuesday, 4 May 2010) . . Page.. 1669 ..


this out. All but two parts of this motion were in a motion brought forward by Mr Hanson a little while ago. The wording is exactly the same; it is a cut and paste. We have seen paragraph (3) before. There are a number of things in this censure motion that we have seen before. When Mr Hanson brought forward the last motion we sat down and said, “We can’t support it in its current form.” We put forward a number of amendments, but one thing that we did retain, which we thought that Mr Hanson had got right, was the importance of having an independent review. Mr Corbell has noted that Mr Hamburger has been engaged to conduct that review.

Our understanding from the Auditor-General and the human rights commissioner is that they are happy with this process. Organisations like ADFACT and DIRECTIONS ACT, which are two community-based drug and alcohol services, are happy with the process as well. I know that a number of individuals and organisations are engaging in the process by commenting on the draft terms of reference. No doubt this independent review will come back with a series of findings and a series of recommendations. It is incumbent upon all members of the Assembly to look closely at those findings and ensure that the recommendations are implemented.

I guess this picks up on Mrs Dunne’s comment about looking backwards—that one of the Labor speakers had gone back to the previous Liberal government. I would also be urging people not to go backwards. Today’s censure motion is a cut and paste from a previous motion. We need to move forward. We need to ensure that we do not just have a human rights compliant building but that the delivery of that prison is human rights compliant. These things are incredibly important. Obviously we need to look at the problems. We need to investigate those problems and then we need to look at the solutions and move forward from there.

I want to pick up on a couple of things in the motion. It is a rather a long motion. On page 2 it goes to the events of Mr Corbell speaking with the media and making some comments—disagreeing that lockdowns of 20 hours over seven days was the problem with the rooftop protest. Ms Bresnan said that she received a briefing. She said she was satisfied that the minister had not been provided with the right information and that he went out to correct the public record as soon as he was aware of the correct circumstances. Ms Bresnan was satisfied that the right thing was done on that occasion.

I think this brings up the issue that was thrown around by members of the opposition about secret briefings. There are no secret briefings. I would like to ask the opposition why they do not ask for briefings. Briefings, we find, are a good way to quickly get in and get the information—to find out the facts and the circumstances. It can be very useful, when you have constituent inquiries or a matter that is running in the community, to get that information. That is what we are here for—to be representatives of the community. Therefore, we should be using all the opportunities we have to seek information. I know that the opposition do a lot of FOI requests, which is a legitimate way of seeking information. Another way is to ring up a minister’s office and also to seek a briefing. There is nothing secret about it. It is another legitimate way of gathering information. Those may be ways of seeking information that the opposition may choose to use more of in the future.


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