Page 2365 - Week 06 - Thursday, 23 June 2011

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Services; secondly, a complaint to the Director-General of the Justice and Community Safety Directorate; thirdly, a complaint to the Commissioner for Public Administration; fourthly, a complaint to the Director of Human Services in New South Wales Corrective Services; fifthly, a complaint to the Commissioner of New South Wales Corrective Services.

Should the former acting superintendent remain unsatisfied with the result of decisions taken following a complaint to all or any of the people I have just mentioned, he would have available to him review mechanisms, including those available under both New South Wales and ACT industrial relations jurisdictions. I regret to inform the Assembly that I am advised that the former acting superintendent has not availed himself of any of these avenues or mechanisms for resolving the issues of complaint, either in New South Wales or in the ACT.

This is about a dispute between a New South Wales public servant who was on secondment to the ACT government and his supervisors within the ACT government. There are mechanisms for resolving, mediating and investigating such a dispute, should the person aggrieved wish to make a complaint. They have not done so. If they do, the appropriate mechanisms will be exercised. That is how this matter should be handled. That is how the government will handle the matter, should it be raised. But to date, no complaint has been made.

To suggest that there should be a referral to a standing committee of this place just shows the absurd political, base grandstanding we see from those opposite. If they had any understanding of the way public sector management issues were dealt with in this place, they would not have embarrassed themselves by suggesting that there should be an inquiry by a standing committee of this place. The government will not be supporting this motion today.

In relation to the amendment proposed by Ms Bresnan, I think I have just outlined to the chamber what the industrial framework is and what avenues are available for public servants who have a grievance in relation to their employment and the manner in which they can pursue it. In those circumstances, I am not inclined to support Ms Bresnan’s amendment, because the public sector management arrangements and framework are quite clear. I have outlined to members what they are and outlined that those avenues remain available to the former acting superintendent should he choose to avail himself of them. In those circumstances, I do not see any need for the amendment proposed by Ms Bresnan and the government is not inclined to support it.

MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (11.15): In speaking to this matter today I do feel a major sense of responsibility for the welfare of Mr Buchanan and do not want to take any steps that will cause adverse outcomes for him. I have spoken to Mr Buchanan and several other parties in preparing for this motion and I will say on the record that I greatly appreciate the views and advice that have been provided to my office and to me. I appreciate what has passed has stemmed from an initial complaint that has been made and the outcome of that complaint is yet to be decided upon.

There is a problem, I believe, in that because Mr Buchanan was on secondment, rather than employed directly through the ACT public service, he did not have adequate

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video