Mr BAYLEY (Clark) - Mr Speaker, while I made this acknowledgement in the Chamber last night, while we have victim-survivors, whistleblowers and advocates in the Chamber I will repeat an acknowledgement and an apology for the trauma that you had to go through to get us to where we are today.
It is a monumental piece of work that has been done by the commission of inquiry. As a new member in this House, I am truly appalled by the evidence but impressed by, not only the level of detail the commission has articulated in its report, but the bravery and the commitment of witnesses in coming forward to share their stories, their observations and their experiences.
I hear the Premier articulate our collective responsibility to respond to this report. The Greens accept that responsibility but it is a daunting task from Opposition. As we have heard already, it is a frustrating task because getting the level of information and transparency out of this Government to enable us to do our jobs is proving to be a difficult exercise.
As we heard earlier in the House, the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability is going to be handed to the Governor-General today and made public over the coming weeks. I am sure that will be equally thorough, equally confronting and equally challenging to hear the stories that have been the experiences of people with disability in the face of neglect, abuse and other impacts on their human right.
I want to acknowledge my federal colleague, Senator Jordon SteeleJohn, for his role in helping establish that royal commission. Undoubtedly, there will be elements contained in that report that we in this parliament need to respond to and need to take into account.
Our commission of inquiry demonstrates an indictment on a culture of a lack of oversight, a lack of care, a lack of respect and the ability of senior people within government to completely abrogate their responsibility for children and young people in government institutions. This has caused significant harm and serious impacts on people, including ongoing harm, suicide and harm that is not just to the person but to their families, to their supporters and to the wider community.
We are seeing enablers, or at least people who had the responsibility to do something in place of the evidence that was presented to them at the time, were simply not acting.
We have heard the Leader of the Greens today repeatedly articulate and repeatedly question the Premier about Mr Pervan and the Government's response to his situation - moved sideways, now out of the public service and working somewhere on the mainland. We do not know what or under what level of scrutiny, but with serious indictments on his behaviour contained in the pages of the commission of inquiry report.
What did he know that led to the level of protection he has enjoyed under this Government. He has been allowed to move sideways several times and then exit the scene in advance of this commission of inquiry and these findings being handed down. It is an issue that the Greens will pursue as parliament returns. It is an indictment that it has taken the commission of inquiry to unpick and unpack these situations and create a situation where the Government is now acting. We want to see that action, we will support that action, but we need to scrutinise that action.
We have identified several areas where we are concerned. We were concerned about the response of the Government about December 4, just before the Christmas break, and the lack of scrutiny. The House will consider an opportunity to rectify that later in the day so I will not go there.
As to the supplementary appropriation bill that is coming, we want to put the Government on notice that this bill to be tabled in mid-October needs to contain a level of detail. As has been said, the Government has had this commission of inquiry report now for a full month and before that draft chapters to feed into, so there have been numerous months now where the Government has had an opportunity to understand its content and start to formulate a response.
It raises the question about how the Government can know how much money will be spent on responding to the recommendations before they table their response. How can we, as a parliament, approve that appropriation without knowing in full detail the Government's response? We will be urging the Government to put as much detail as possible into that supplementary appropriation bill. We want to see very clear accounting about it. Where is the money coming from? Where is it going to?
We do not want to see a situation where existing budgets are being raided to deliver the recommendations of the commission of inquiry. We do not want to rob Peter to pay Paul and that is something we need to watch very closely in this House. There are simply going to be cuts to aspects of existing programs to fund these new ones recommended by the commission of inquiry. We repeatedly hear the Government avoid accountability on their situation. They seem to be able to provide clear answers when it comes to Dorothy Dixer questions but not to answer questions from this side of the House.
