Page 188 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 16 February 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
perform his functions and those of this inquiry without the unprecedented, grubby and malicious attack that we are seeing moved here in the Assembly this afternoon by Mrs Dunne.
I have reviewed the circumstances that Mrs Dunne alleges are the basis for her complaint. I have discussed the matter directly with the Children and Young People Commissioner. I have discussed the matter with my department and sought advice from them. It is very clear to me that at all times the commissioner has acted appropriately. At all times the commissioner has not sought to disclose or act in a manner which would disclose inappropriately the identity of the person who has contacted him in relation to this matter.
It is important to remember that this was not an instance of someone making a formal complaint to the human rights commissioner. Indeed, the commissioner asked the complainant, “Are you lodging a formal complaint under the act?” And the answer was: “No, I’m not. I don’t think I am doing that. No. That’s not what I’m doing.” In fact, it was unclear what formal approach the complainant wished to take. The complainant advised the commissioner that they would consider that issue further and discuss the matter further with the commissioner.
So there is an ambiguity about the nature of the approach to the commissioner. But, in any event, the commissioner has not improperly disclosed that complainant’s identity and certainly has not done so in any way as to compromise the wellbeing or the employment status of that complainant. Nor has the commissioner done anything that would compromise the integrity of the inquiry.
The government is satisfied with the approach adopted by the Children and Young People Commissioner. The commissioner is well respected. The commissioner has broad links into our community and is well respected in the children and youth services area. He knows the people who work in the sector; he knows the work they have to do and he knows the challenges and the issues they face. He is, indeed, a most appropriate person to conduct this inquiry.
Of course, what we are really seeing here today is an abuse of the processes of this Assembly to denigrate and attack a statutory public office holder who does not have the same avenues to defend himself that Mrs Dunne has in advancing this argument. Indeed, Mrs Dunne is using the cowards castle to attack a statutory public officer in a manner in which he cannot fully and properly defend himself. For those reasons, I move the amendment to Mrs Dunne’s motion that I have circulated in my name:
Omit all words after “That this Assembly”, substitute:
“(1) noting the importance of the principles outlined in Continuing Resolution No. 7, Exercise of freedom of speech, agreed by the Assembly in 1995, namely:
(a) the need for Members to exercise their valuable right of freedom of speech in a responsible manner;
(b) the desirability of ensuring that statements reflecting adversely on persons are soundly based;
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video