Page 5359 - Week 14 - Thursday, 19 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
around the AMC through its fake opening and the ongoing delays. But what has become apparent through the course of the committee inquiries, and indeed it is confirmed by this report today, is that the man responsible, culpable and accountable for the mismanagement of the AMC, who caused so many of the problems that we saw with corrections—in particular, the overcrowding and the continued, exacerbated, human rights breaches that we saw at the Belconnen Remand Centre, to use the words contained in the report—is Simon Corbell. That is what this committee report has found.
That is what you find as you go through the findings. I look forward to going through the detail in the report, but that is pretty clear to anyone who just skims over the findings. It astounds me that the Chief Minister would seek to give this portfolio back to the minister who stuffed it up so badly. I find it quite remarkable. We can only hope that, throughout the course of the next few years, or however long he has the portfolio, he can do a better job than he did when he had it last time.
Let me turn to some highlights from the findings that I have been able to uncover in the last few minutes. The report confirms that the opening was indeed a sham. Look at finding 2:
On 4 February 2009 when the Committee undertook a site visit, the AMC was clearly not ready for handover and it was apparent to the Committee Members that considerable work still needed to be done.
Why is it that the committee, unanimously, five months after the mock opening, could go out to the site and see that it clearly was not ready for handover, yet the minister was quite prepared to open it on the eve of the 2008 election? How is that? Finding 14 says:
At the time of the opening, as the Minister was not appropriately briefed on the delays …
It is a minister’s responsibility to make sure that his department is briefing him on the delays, particularly when, as noted in finding 13, in the period leading up to 11 September, in the previous six months, there had been eight delays.
How is it that a minister in charge of a major project that has experienced eight delays does not seek the briefings from his department, does not even bother to go out and look to confirm whether this prison is ready to be opened or not? Could it be that, on the eve of the 2008 election, Simon Corbell wanted this open come hell or high water? We know that that is the case, because it was not ready to receive prisoners until a good six months later, in March the following year.
Ms Porter and Mrs Dunne have talked about the communication failures. Finding 23 refers to the communication failures between the various parties: the client, which in this case I read to be the government; the contractors; and the subcontractors. I repeat: communication failures.
There is also the question of New South Wales prisoners and why they were brought back early. Clearly, New South Wales thought this jail was opening in September. They had their plans to ease pressure on their jails and make sure that prisoners were
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video