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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2011 Week 01 Hansard (Wednesday, 16 February 2011) . . Page.. 207 ..


The Assembly voted—

Ayes 5

Noes 8

Mr Barr

Mr Stanhope

Ms Bresnan

Ms Hunter

Ms Burch

Mr Coe

Ms Le Couteur

Mr Corbell

Mr Doszpot

Mr Rattenbury

Mr Hargreaves

Mrs Dunne

Mr Smyth

Question so resolved in the negative.

MR DOSZPOT (Brindabella) (4.26): The Attorney-General’s hypocrisy in this matter is incredible. Mrs Dunne has no case to answer in this trumped-up censure. It leaves it wide open to censure of the Attorney-General himself.

Mrs Dunne wrote to Alasdair Roy, the Children and Young People Commissioner, three times seeking confirmation that he honoured the confidentiality of his conversation with the informant. After the third letter, the commissioner replied, advising that the privacy of the informant was not compromised. Yet in that same letter to Mrs Dunne, the commissioner disclosed the name of the informant, not once but three times.

He also provided Mrs Dunne’s office a copy of the community and health services complaints commissioner’s commitment to services statement. Although it is noted by Mr Roy that this statement is outdated and does not apply to the whole commission, if these were standards that he was purporting to uphold, he has failed miserably.

Let us examine aspects of the commitment to service statement. First off there is the commitment to users of the commission to maintain the confidentiality of their records. Well, a big tick in the fail column there—fail. With regard to service standards it says they will protect the privacy of personal information entrusted to them. Yet again, in the case of Mr Roy, this is a big tick in the fail column—fail.

The fact is that an inquiry was launched into the Bimberi Youth Justice Centre, and an informant, whilst doing nothing more than carrying out a civic duty, had his/her privacy compromised by the commissioner. The fact that the government has backed the commissioner and chosen not to take any further action beyond censuring Mrs Dunne is distasteful and quite dangerous. It sends a message to the public that the powers that be in this city—Mr Stanhope and his government—cannot be trusted. The public cannot trust the government to protect them.

I have been critical of the Stanhope government in the past, but this current episode takes the credibility of the Stanhope government to an all-time low. The credibility of the Stanhope government is tantamount to nothing more than a dictatorial regime based on this episode. Today they have chosen Mrs Dunne as their scapegoat rather than address a glaring problem and take the necessary action to protect the informant.

Why does Mrs Dunne have to pay for the sins of Mr Alasdair Roy in today’s sitting? Equally, why is the informant left to pick up the pieces of his or her life after


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