Page 3355 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 17 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
need for a comprehensive review of the Public Interest Disclosure Act so that we have a more robust mechanism to deal with complaints within the public service. Mr Speaker, the Greens will not be supporting this motion as we believe the salient issues will be covered in my motion this afternoon and we simply cannot agree with many of the statements that are made in the motion.
Before turning to the broader issue of whistleblowing, I would like to go through the specific issues and allegations that have been made. A number of these issues have been raised many times before in this place. We have discussed at great length the issues within obstetrics at the Canberra Hospital. The process that was set up to investigate the allegations of bullying and harassment at the Canberra Hospital obstetrics unit was broadly supported by everyone involved, except the Canberra Liberals.
Everyone, except for the Liberals, agreed at the time when the matter first came before the chamber that it was more appropriate to have an independent expert undertake investigations and a conciliation process. This recognised the sensitivity needed to handle allegations of workplace harassment. It recognised that it would not be in the best interest of anyone involved nor in the broader public interest to have this matter publicly litigated, and witnesses subpoenaed, through either an inquiries act or Assembly inquiry process. It now appears that some relevant bodies have changed their public position. That is unfortunate, but does not change the reality of the situation we are now faced with.
No-one has ever argued that the Public Interest Disclosure Act is perfect or that it would give us the best possible outcome. The reality is that it is what was available and it was the best mechanism available at the time to deal with the problem. At all times throughout the debate on this matter the Greens have emphasised the need for that workplace to be able to rebuild its morale and relationships first and foremost.
A hostile inquiry would not have assisted this process. I cannot understand why the Canberra Liberals continue to say that the minister is suppressing the findings. Section 33 of the Public Interest Disclosure Act explicitly prevents disclosure of the information gained through the inquiry. It would be an offence, punishable by 50 penalty units, for the minister to disclose the information or, indeed, for any official in the investigation to disclose it to her.
You might reasonably argue that this is a deficiency in the Public Interest Disclosure Act and something that needs to be looked at in the review process, and I agree that it should be looked at. It is something that has been considered by the whistling while they work project, which found that several other jurisdictions do have better models for how this might be dealt with. Again, this will be covered by my motion later this afternoon.
When it comes to the case of the former superintendent of the AMC, the Greens did not support a committee inquiry because we were concerned about the consequences for the individual involved. It was not evident to us that he readily understood exactly what an inquiry would involve and there are a range of other mechanisms that could be used to resolve any impropriety. This was certainly not an issue that needed to be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video