Page 5924 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 8 December 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
allegations, ensure privacy and confidentiality and aim to resolve complaints quickly. The guide also states that formal investigation processes should address confidentiality so that everyone involved is responsible for treating information in strict confidence to prevent the matter escalating and avoid potential defamation in case the matter is not proven.
It is very concerning that at every juncture Mr Hanson has sought to ignore the need for confidentiality and has done his very best to ensure that matters escalate. And it is for this reason I will be moving the amendment that I have put forward today so that we can ensure that these instances of bullying and harassment are dealt with according to best practice measures that protect the people involved.
The public interest disclosure investigation into the allegations of bullying and harassment at the obstetrics unit at the Canberra Hospital related to a certain number of people. As such, it is reasonable to expect that it will be clear, from any recommendations and findings made by the public interest disclosure process, whose testimony led to the recommendation. And whilst the findings might not name names, it is highly likely that it would be still enough to label individuals in the workplace either as alleged bullies or alleged whistleblowers, neither of which are desirable outcomes.
Moreover, one of the reasons that the ACT Greens supported the Public Interest Disclosure Act provisions being used in the first place was that the guarantee of complete confidentiality provided by the process meant that people who felt that public allegations would lead to workplace and health repercussions could bring forward private concerns, with the understanding that they would not be named. Violating this guarantee, even by releasing findings that do not relate to individual cases, is a breach of trust that undermines the very point of public interest disclosure processes and can do major harm. The only people who should be able to view results of a public interest disclosure process are the people involved, as per the act. This gives the individuals affected an assurance that actions are being taken without causing them undue stress regarding the accusations playing out through the media.
The worst possible outcome from this investigation, from the viewpoint of victims, is to have the results of the public interest disclosure process flashed across the front page of the Canberra Times. And it is instructive to recall that in the initial call for an inquiry into the allegations of bullying, Mr Hanson and his colleagues were willing to have the victims of bullying subpoenaed to compel them to appear. Not only would this have caused victims to publicise their ordeal against their wishes, it would have led to criminal sanctions should they have refused. This goes against every principle of the appropriate manner for dealing with workplace bullying that I have outlined earlier.
As I have stated publicly, my own interest in this matter is ensuring that the individuals who have been affected by this ordeal have their rights, privacy and safety protected. It is for this reason that the ACT Greens supported the use of public interest disclosure and that we continue to do so in the interests of people working in the obstetrics unit at the Canberra Hospital. And as I have said publicly before, I do not care about the needs of the health minister, frankly, or the needs of Mr Hanson. I care about the needs of the people who have come forward through public interest
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video