Page 3358 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 17 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR SPEAKER: Yes, stop the clocks, thank you. Mr Corbell.
Mr Corbell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I understand that those on the other side of this place have their concerns about your performance, Mr Speaker. We have seen that outlined in the debate yesterday. But I think it is incumbent on all members to show due reference to the chair. If they espouse the types of things we heard from them yesterday about the importance and the authority of the chair and so on, they know the proper form in this place to deal with any concerns they have. They have exercised that. They have been unsuccessful in it. But the sort of snide, disrespectful comments that we have seen towards you, Mr Speaker, from Mr Hanson just then cannot be tolerated in this place. The chair deserves respect. It does not matter who is in the chair. The chair deserves—
Mr Seselja: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Seselja, Mr Corbell has the floor.
Mr Corbell: Mr Speaker, Mr Hanson is failing to show that respect. It is a breach of the standing orders. He knows what the forms of this place are. I simply take the opportunity, Mr Speaker, to draw to your attention my concern and the government’s concern about that behaviour and ask you to remind members about the importance of showing respect for the chair. That is the obligation on members in this place. It is not about who sits in the chair.
MR SPEAKER: Order! Thank you, Mr Corbell. There is no point of order. Ms Hunter, you have the floor.
MS HUNTER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think we all in this place can agree that it does take some courage to speak out and be critical or highlight a concern about maladministration, knowing that the criticism is about colleagues and therefore carries the risks of reprisals and difficulties in the workplace. The Greens certainly agree that we need to minimise the risk of this occurring and that the Public Interest Disclosure Act should offer better protections so there can be no doubt that any action taken in response to someone raising a concern is unlawful.
The prevailing culture should be one that says it is not okay to respond with discrimination or reprisal and that complaints and criticism are an essential part of the continual improvement that the public service should be striving for. In the event that a public servant does feel uneasy about the response of their supervisor or colleagues, they should be able to be confident to approach more senior management or the director-general directly to voice their concern, knowing that the rest of the directorate would respect the good intentions and positively value the opportunity to correct any error.
On the question of what should be done now to improve the public interest disclosure process, we certainly need to do more than provide compensation to those for whom the system does not work. The obvious aim is to prevent the loss in the first place. The Greens’ view is that there should be a statutory framework for compensation where a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video