Page 5361 - Week 14 - Thursday, 19 November 2009

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

been eight successive delays leading up to the opening was at best mismanagement but at worst an attempt by the minister to interfere with the electoral process of this territory by opening—

Mr Corbell: On a point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker: that is a most improper accusation. I ask Mr Hanson to withdraw.

MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ms Le Couteur): Yes. Mr Hanson, please withdraw.

MR HANSON: Yes, I will withdraw that. I think that is a conclusion that could be drawn, but I do withdraw.

MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, you have to actually withdraw it.

MR HANSON: I withdraw it.

In conclusion, let me say that this has been a very, very disappointing episode for the territory. I hope that Mr Corbell, when he does table his response to the government, does not try to blame others and does not try to hide behind spin but fronts up, says he got it wrong and says that he is going to do everything in his power to make sure that moving forward with the management of the AMC and the broader portfolio of corrections generally is managed better.

MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (5.01): I have had the opportunity to briefly read the report and its key findings and recommendations. Obviously, the government will respond in more detail in due course, but I thought it was appropriate, given some of the very strong language that members have used in this discussion this afternoon, to make some observations of my own.

Firstly, I would have to say that the findings that the opposition is using in their critiques are not backed up by any analysis in this report whatsoever. I would turn to finding No 22 in particular. It asserts that, while there were significant delays in installing the AMC security system, not all the delays were due to the security, as I have contended. But the committee says in the page prior to this—and let me read it to the Assembly:

The Committee is satisfied that this failure—

that is, the failure of the security system—

was so unusual and unforeseeable that there were no steps that either the Territory or the contractor could have been reasonably expected to take to prevent it.

What was the major reason for delay? The major reason for delay was the security system, yet this committee has made a finding that is not backed up by the evidence. This is a sham of a recommendation and finding. An absolute sham. There is no analysis in this report to back it up. The committee as a whole should reflect on this. It

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video