Page 2367 - Week 06 - Thursday, 23 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I will be moving an amendment to Mr Hanson’s motion along those lines, asking for the government to facilitate a public interest disclosure process with Mr Buchanan if that is something he wishes to do.
Going to the systemic matters, I will also be moving an amendment to Mr Hanson’s motion calling on the government to outline what industrial relations rights are available to public servants who are on secondment to the ACT public service and whether they differ greatly from that available to permanent employees. It asks the government to investigate this matter and report to the chamber by the last sitting day in August this year.
My primary concern in this matter is for the individual in question and his welfare. Mr Buchanan could basically, I believe, be hung out to dry in a committee inquiry and become the victim of a political point scoring exercise. Public interest disclosure legislation was created for the very purpose which is involved in this case. I know there are disagreements about this process, but I firmly believe it is the most appropriate course of action in this situation; not something that would be played out through the media with no protections offered to the individual at the heart of the matter.
I was going to say that I could predict what Mr Hanson has to say, but he has already said it. But this is a highly sensitive matter and, as I have said before on other such matters, my concern is not for the Canberra Liberals or for the government; it is for the individual who will be put in a very vulnerable position. Yes, the Greens have asked questions about this, and we did ask questions in estimates, but the question again is: what is the appropriate process to apply scrutiny to give an individual redress without having a very vulnerable person dragged through the mud in public?
I will just go back to the public interest disclosure process again. It can actually be facilitated through the ACT Ombudsman or the Auditor-General, so not through a government agency. So there is scrutiny through that process but it is not scrutiny via a committee, not scrutiny via the Canberra Liberals or the government. We have chosen that for a reason, as we are concerned about the manner in which, as I have already said, both the Liberals and the Labor Party would scrutinise this situation and how it would impact on Mr Buchanan.
There have already been quite a lot of comments made, but I am very concerned that we are dealing with someone who is very vulnerable. As I have said, I have spoken to him. I am quite concerned for his welfare and that is why we are not supporting the process that has been put forward by Mr Hanson. I am disappointed to hear that the government will not be supporting it. While Mr Corbell outlined processes that are involved, I do think we need more clarity in terms of people on secondment in terms of actual industrial relations rights. I spoke to the CPSU about this and that was something that they noted as well.
In terms of public interest disclosure, I think this would have been the most appropriate process. Again, I am disappointed that we will not have this process facilitated. We cannot support what the Liberals put forward. So it is, I think,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video