A slim chance still remains that the NSW Legislative Council will form a committee of inquiry into the political cover-up preceding the arrest of former Aboriginal Affairs Minister Milton Orkopoulos and the scapegoating of his electorate office worker Gillian Sneddon who blew the whistle to police on his secret life.
When parliament resumes next week, Upper House president Peter Primrose will rule on whether the establishment of a committee is in breach of sub judice rules.
This followed a claim by Labor MPs that Sneddon had a court action on foot against the parliament for compensation and therefore any plans for a committee should be shelved.
In fact, Sneddon has merely rejected an offer of $100,000 from the Speaker, Richard Torbay, and is considering her legal options.
Primrose, an upright and level-headed MP who is a stickler for the conventions, will not easily be heavied by senior ministers from his own government who are desperate to kick the Coalition’s call for an inquiry into touch.
A list of witnesses are waiting to be called to tell their side of the Orkopoulos saga. They include:
- Gillian Sneddon who was sacked by her employer, the Legislative Assembly, after she confidentially informed senior parliamentary officers that she was cooperating with the police in their pedophile inquiries;
- Ben Blackburn, one of Orkopoulos’s victims who now works for the anti-pedophile action group Bravehearts, who has publicly claimed there has been a political cover-up;
- Paul O’Grady, ex-chief of staff to former tourism minister Sandra Nori, who would testify about the alleged Orkopoulos warning given to Premier Morris Iemma by his longtime political friend David Tierney of Multiplex;
- Bryce Gaudry, the former Newcastle Labor MP, who first learned of Orkopoulos’s s-xual depravities in 2005 but was assured by Orkopoulos that he had informed the police and the inquiry was closed.
Any upper house investigation would be the first opportunity to discover the “who knew what and when” of the Orkopoulos affair which has resulted in his conviction on 28 under age s-x and drug offences and his jailing for 13 years.
Blackburn told Crikey: “Personally, as a victim of Orkopoulos, I want this Upper House inquiry to happen. I want it for myself and I want it so that the shocking treatment of Gillian Sneddon, as an employee of the NSW Parliament, is exposed for what it was.
“The victims deserve it, Gillian deserves it and the people who voted in good faith for this government deserve it.”
Over to the Hon. President, Comrade Primrose, who resumes the chair next Tuesday.
Further to Chris Johnson’s comments, will the Libs be able to make an issue of any Government refusal to support an inquiry at the next election? Chris is correct that the Orkopoulos case is a tale of massive abuse perpetrated by someone in the public trust, and massive failure to identify what was going on in time to protect young victims. The Liberal attack advertisement basically writes itself – black and white images of Orkopoulos, deep voiced narration about how evil he is, scary music in the background, “why does the Labor government continue to hide what really happened” type themes. I’m not a NSW resident, but it seems to me that the Libs haven’t made much of an issue about this at this stage.
Perhaps that enquiry could also look at the outrageous manner in which the Labor government enacted a law specifically to punish one person even further-by denying Orkopoulos his due supperannuation which is an attack upon his innocent family-not Milton who will be looked after by the state for the next 10 years. Good to hear his victims will be working for the well funded Bravehearts who yap a lot in the media but actually do little in practice towards solving the huge problem of child abuse in this NSW , let alone the country. Perhaps they could dontate their compensation-always the first to be paid out over any other form , to abused children as a show of sincerity. Bravehearts promote the the concept of permanent “victimhood” rather than assisting those abused seeing themselves as survivors who can move on with their lives. Mitchell with his background in taudry tabloid journalism seems to be bringing that to crikey, the one place we come to get away from that rubbish. If he’s going to keep sensationlising matters like “Orkopoulos saga ” at least tell the whole story instead of only cherry picking the bits suitable for a daily tabloid.
Good stuff Chris, I’m a former electorate officer myself and your comments are spot on. I hadn’t considered that the Libs would prioritise keeping the spotlight off dodgy electorate office practices ahead of making the Government look evil, but you’re quite possibly correct.
Here’s Miranda, the ever present devils advocate. Yep, freedom of speech in this country is well and truly super-glued by political parties who also hold sway on our mainstream publications. So where else do we go? The same place you do Miranda, the voice of Crikey. As for Mitchell’s coverage of the Orkopoulos saga if he took this and the next publication he’d only be encapsulating a smidgeon of the obscene moral, public and political transgressions this case has thrown up. Mitchell is shoving the key points right at us. The inability of a ‘here and now’ public administration to provide an open transparent explanation of why evil triumphed over good; the degree of political bias that blurred Christian and humanitarian principles for those sworn to them and the right for victims to hear why their trust were so betrayed by a government, a parliament and the individuals charged with delivering that conviction. Personally, I believe there are too many of us living in NSW who need to hear the answers to all the above and more. And it’s no longer up to Upper House and ALP MP Peter Primrose, to stand in the way of that request. The problem is, can he shed his party allegiance for integrity.
No Dave, there’s no great motivation for the Liberals to get justice in the Orkopoulos case because it opens the flood gates on a more expedient matter. The funding and management of an MP’s home turf, the electorate office. Right now parliaments pick up the tab as parties run them. The Orkopoulos case is the prime example of what happens when this flimsy arrangement all goes horribly wrong. We have a public-funded bolt-hole where staff like Gillian Sneddon are paid by the parliament but are managed by the party. Not all staff are willing party participants because not all staff know that these workplaces are so ambiguous they carry no guarantees on basic workplace principles such as WHS, OHS and EEO. The arrangement plays out in numerous ways by offering political parties tax-funded ‘free space’ that as Orkopoulos demonstrated can be used as a ‘play-pen’. It’s a windfall for the bigger political players because tax payers pick up the bill for any number of party or MP-fostering activities and then there’s the Gillian Sneddon element – where neither the party nor the parliament is responsible for delivering a rock-solid employment model for staff who serve MPs at the local level. Failing to turn an MP electorate office into an apolitical service outlet has a huge downside for parties. They’d have to fund their own PR machines as they work on open and transparent political administration. And what party wants to deliver that?