Page 1270 - Week 05 - Thursday, 31 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is no doubt in my mind that the subject incident referred to in Mrs Dunne’s letter of 7 May was very poorly handled by the college in question. There is no doubt that there must have been a breach of protocol on the part of that school. The information that we have would indicate very serious violence. The information would be that the family were encouraged not to report the incident to the police. That in my book is a breach of protocol. The fact of the matter is that therefore this minister may not have been informed by his department about a breach of protocol.
It is very important that the minister have protocols in place. Just as important, though, is the Assembly’s ability to scrutinise the minister and that in this place he is transparent about those protocols. Therefore, the minister’s failure to answer truthfully yesterday was a breach—which is why he is here today subject to censure.
Whether or not the subject incident at the college has been proven, he should at least have had the presence of mind to refer to it in his answer. If, in his mind, the incident referred to at this college may not have been a breach of protocol but there were serious doubts about that, he should have at least in his answer yesterday said, “Well, look, you know, I do not think there have been any flagrant violations of protocol but there could well have been and there are a couple of incidents that I am looking at. I am seriously looking at a couple of incidents now.” If he had said that, then that would have been a transparent response to a very serious question asked by Mrs Dunne. Mrs Dunne has a responsibility as the shadow education minister to ask this minister serious questions about safety in our schools. That is what transparency is about, and this guy has failed.
Mr Hargreaves: Give us the proof.
MR PRATT: The reason I am pretty sure that the minister at least did not truthfully answer because of an inadvertent failure to be on top of things is that we know that the minister has not always been aware of serious incidents reported in schools and in the territory. I refer to an incident last year. I am absolutely confident that, when a matter was brought to this minister’s attention about another college and another very serious issue, he did not know about it. I genuinely do not believe that he knew about that. I believe that he was caught short and that, when Mrs Dunne and I raised the issue, he honestly did not know that something had occurred. Some days later, I am sure he did.
That is an issue which is not the subject of discussion here today, but it points to the fact that the minister did not know about a very serious issue which had involved the calling in of the police. Why is that, Mr Speaker? Why was the minister not aware? I will tell you why, Mr Speaker: this minister has not put the fear of God into his department to ensure that at all times serious matters involving possible breaches of protocol are briefed to him. He has not done that. As a minister, he cannot scrutinise his department. His department are not fearful—do not ensure that he is kept informed of such incidents. That is a failure on your part, minister. No wonder you misled the Assembly yesterday, minister. You are not on your game. You have not struck the fear of God into your department to ensure that they keep you informed about serious incidents.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .