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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 01 Hansard (Tuesday, 9 February 2010) . . Page.. 95 ..

Assembly at the time. As the chairman of the committee and a member of the committee, I stand by the finding—

Mr Seselja: There is a lot of blame to go around. He is going to share it with everyone.

MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Hargreaves): Order, members! Mrs Dunne is quite capable of doing this all by herself.

MRS DUNNE: I stand by the finding that not all the delays were caused by the security system. There is no doubt that the security system caused a huge number of problems, and the installation was fraught. That would be an understatement. But they were not the only delays. The clear evidence with the eyes of the committee when we visited the AMC on 4 February was that the building workers were still sweeping the site for undetected metal. The minister, in his evidence before the committee, said that on 12 September, when they opened the prison, for all intents and purposes it was ready. If this was a building that was ready for operation, then why in February, five months later, were they still sweeping the ground for undetected metal—if, on 12 September, for all intents and purposes, this building was ready for operation? It was clear from the evidence of our eyes; it was clear from the evidence provided to us in camera. Evidence was provided to us in camera that there were other factors. They were not all as grave as the security system, but there were other factors.

The minister has hung his hat on it. I would like the minister to provide for the Assembly the information that he relies upon. Really what it boils down to is that we do not know the extent to which the information that my committee relied upon is exactly the same as the information provided to the independent adviser. We do not know whether the independent adviser was given exactly the same documentation—whether the independent adviser, when he asked for extra information, was provided with it as courtesy would require. Certainly this committee did not receive all the information that it asked for.

There are many questions that are still unanswered about this matter. The performance of the attorney, both back in November and today, demonstrates his sensitivity on this matter. Mr Hanson has amply highlighted all the reasons why this attorney and this minister for corrections would be sensitive on this matter. With all the fanfare that we saw in September 2008 with the sham opening, we have an expensive prison which has blown the budget in a range of areas and which has been cut back in a range of areas. Even in the early days of its operation, there have been substantial failings. (Time expired.)

Question resolved in the affirmative.


Mr Corbell presented the following paper:

Australian Crime Commission (ACT) Act, pursuant to subsection 51(5)—annual report 2008-09—Australian Crime Commission, dated 12 November 2009.

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