Page 1037 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 30 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I think that is an acknowledgement that we have a problem. There is an acknowledgement in Ms Hunter’s amendment. Why would we have to have something like that? Is it because this many voices are not likely to be wrong? Is it because we have seen documentary evidence? We have heard from Trish McEwan. We have heard from Dave Cavill. We have heard from this other caller, a former staff member at Bimberi, on ABC yesterday as well, who said: “I’m in another area at the moment but my manager was told he wasn’t allowed to report to the review. That was a couple of weeks ago. He had all intentions to report but was told that he wasn’t. I have confidence in the people doing the review, but I don’t have confidence in the outcome. I don’t know whether the truth will come out. I have been stood down. I think it’s because of my involvement with the review.” That is further evidence that the review cannot get to the bottom of it. This caller is saying that, even with the best will in the world from those investigating, they are not going to be able to get to the bottom of it because they are being told not to cooperate.
Ms Hunter feels it necessary to put in her amendment the taking of the strongest disciplinary action. The reality is that the best way to ensure that that occurs is to have a full judicial inquiry. We are seeing Ms Hunter inch towards this position where she is acknowledging that there is a serious problem with the inquiry. Otherwise, why would you bother putting a provision like that in your amendment? But she is not prepared to do the work to put in place the parameters that would give the protection, that would give the confidence and that would send a clear message to anyone who is seeking to corrupt this process that that is unacceptable and that they will be held to account using the full force of the law if necessary. That admission in Ms Hunter’s amendment goes to the heart of why we need a judicial inquiry.
Is it really the position of the Labor Party and the Greens that all of these people who have come out publicly are all liars? That is the only conclusion we can draw. If they are not liars and if any of them are telling the truth—I believe they are—then these are serious allegations. They are the most serious allegations in relation to an inquiry. We have heard four different ways now—and counting—on how this message has been delivered. These are the most serious of allegations, and no-one on that side seems to be taking them seriously.
Has the Attorney-General launched an investigation? Is the Attorney-General concerned about alleged breaches of the Human Rights Act? He talked about the sections. Will he use his powers and his resources to ensure that there is a thorough investigation? So far the answer is no. They are going to let these allegations go, because the government do not want to get to the bottom of it. It is not in their interests to discover that this inquiry may be dodgy, that it has been perverted and that it has been corrupted by the discouragement in a number of ways for staff to speak to the inquiry and to speak out.
Mr Assistant Speaker, we will not be supporting this amendment, and I think the amendment itself highlights the problem. It highlights the fact that there is some substance to these claims. This many people would not be putting themselves on the line to speak publicly if there was not some truth in those allegations.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video