Page 2374 - Week 06 - Thursday, 23 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Thank you very much, Mr Smyth. My recollection in terms of people not complying with a request of mine to desist from interjecting is that it can be as many as five, six, seven, eight, even as many as 10, before I get to the stage of advising people I am about to warn somebody. I believe that if the minister has said something a second time after being asked to withdraw it, that still does not fit into the definition of persistent misbehaviour when judged against your own example.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (11.41): The minister’s argument against this motion appears to be based on the fact that if we were to support this motion or if this motion were to get up, there would be some sort of flood of inquiries into employment relations within the ACT public service. That is based on the fact that we are going to see significant numbers of high ranking senior public servants in senior, critical positions in the ACT government be dismissed and then go public with their concerns.
I am not aware of any recent examples other than Mr Buchanan of that actually occurring. And that goes to the point, Mr Assistant Speaker, that it is a very rare thing for someone who is dismissed from a senior government position to go public with their grievances because we have seen how the government treat people who criticise them publicly. They seek to smear them and besmirch them and it takes a lot of courage. We see just how rare it is. Does that mean there are not other circumstances where people are unfairly treated or pushed or treated badly? Of course, it does not. All it means is that it is a rare thing indeed for a senior public servant, in this case with over 30 years experience, to go public with their grievances.
That suggests to me that we are dealing with something pretty significant here. It suggests to me that this would not have been done lightly. I think that is at the heart of Mr Hanson’s motion. It is not the Canberra Liberals who chose to go public with this. It is Mr Buchanan who chose to go public with this. The message from the government and the Greens is “get back in your box”. He has come here and, according to the government’s own independent review, has helped to turn the place around. He helped to turn the prison around. The Hamburger review said that it was dysfunctional and things actually started to improve under him—and, lo and behold, he is pushed.
It is no wonder that Simon Corbell does not want any scrutiny of that process. You have a fellow who has come with impeccable recommendations, with significant years of experience in corrections. You have your review which says that you set up the prison and in the first year it was a completely dysfunctional prison, for all sorts of reasons coming from the very top, and you then bring in a fellow who has experience and he helps to turn it around.
What did the Hamburger review say that he did? It said that he “demonstrates strong experience in management of secure correctional facilities”. It states:
There is evidence that he is mentoring the AMC leadership team and leading by example in his interactions with staff and detainees. Feedback from some external stakeholders is that the Superintendent is having a positive impact on AMC operations. ACT Corrective Services say that since this appointment:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video