Page 3353 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 17 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
allows for no action to be taken in relation to frivolous or trivial matters or if the allegation is more appropriately dealt with through other avenues of redress.
The legislation is not intended to address individual grievances. In part to encourage disclosures to be made and to protect those brave individuals who do step forward, the act contains very significant penalties for people who seek to victimise a person who has made a disclosure. It also establishes a strict regime of confidentiality. Compliance with those provisions is critical to maintaining confidence in that legislative framework.
Indeed, it is entirely counterproductive to the intent of the law for allegations of concealment or cover-up to be levelled in this place against ministers who are simply complying with the law and protecting the enormous public interest in the effective operation of that regime. To do so continues, I think, to peddle and undermine confidence in this crucial accountability mechanism.
If we go to subsection 1(f) of Mr Seselja’s motion, “the Minister for Health’s continued suppression of the findings of an inquiry into bullying at the Canberra Hospital”, it is a clear example where the opposition for some time, and I am sure they are going to continue it for the next year, continue to peddle the public belief that I have the findings of the public interest disclosure process, that they have been given to me and that I am suppressing them from being provided to the public when the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow health spokesman know, or I think they know, unless they do not actually believe what they are being told, that I did not choose for the public interest disclosure process to be used in that instance. It is not a decision for a minister.
I have not received the report on the public interest disclosure as I am prevented from being able to do so under the law. To actually put in the motion “the continued suppression of the findings of an inquiry” as though I have them is simply incorrect and misleading. I would urge the opposition to stop this very clear mislead of the ACT community by actually putting that in a motion for consideration by this Assembly. It makes a mockery of my belief that they are genuinely wanting to do anything in this area, in this space, because they are writing things in a way that they know other parties in this place, particularly the government, are unable to support. I think that is what they want. They want to look like they are trying to do something but they genuinely do not want to do anything, because it may involve some work.
I have dealt with subsection 1(f) there, but subsection 1(e) is another clearly incorrect allegation that the Liberals are going to continue to peddle, it would seem.
The government does believe and certainly I do, as Chief Minister—and I have been taking a lot of briefings around our complaints handling, around legislation like public interest disclosure, around information legislation like freedom of information legislation in the ACT, in line with my open government agenda—that there are great opportunities before us about how we can open up the systems and mysteries of government, how we can improve our legislation and, importantly, how we can look at how matters are being dealt with at the coalface. That was one of the issues raised in the discussions that I had with the WorkSafe commissioner and the Ombudsman
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video