Page 3401 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 17 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
department. She gave the riding instructions. She went out there and, with no evidence, dismissed claims made about bullying. She was then forced to do an inquiry. But, of course, she made sure that that inquiry could never come to light, and that is the problem with the way this government treats people.
In relation to Ms Hunter’s arguments, the Greens, it seems, and particularly Ms Hunter, never want to focus on the individual damage; they only want to focus on the broad. It is another way of protecting their mates. It is another way of protecting their cosy coalition with the Labor Party. We believe that individuals should get justice. There is a case where individuals have been treated so badly and are prepared to speak out, and they have the courage to speak out. They should be supported, not sold down the river. That is what the Greens are doing again today. I think that Mr Hanson’s amendment should be supported.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (4.16): I simply support everything Ms Hunter said. I think she said it quite eloquently when outlining the reasons why we cannot support this amendment to Mr Seselja’s motion.
I will just talk briefly to Mr Buchanan’s case. I understand Mr Hanson said something about my having mentioned it in my speech to the original motion he put. Yes, I did say I was concerned about what the government would say, but I was actually concerned about what all parties would come out and say in this sort of very public forum where someone’s possible personal details and a situation that has happened to them in the workplace would get played out publicly and everything goes on the public record. I think that was my concern when I initially spoke to Mr Buchanan about this.
Yes, I noted in my speech also that the primary concern I had was for his welfare. I reiterate that. And I know Mr Hanson and probably Mr Seselja will get up and say that it is some fake concern that I have, but I am actually extremely concerned about that. When I had my initial conversation with Mr Buchanan, the concern I also had was that it seemed that no-one at any stage had offered him assistance, had actually talked about what his options were. He does have options to him when it comes to this sort of situation.
I recall Mr Hanson, in his original speech as well, playing out how the conversation happened when I spoke to him, saying that I said, “No, do not worry about that; you do it this way.” That is absolutely not what happened. I had a very frank conversation with him about this. We talked about what the options were and there were a number of things which we spoke about, some things which I am not going to make public here in the Assembly because I do not think it is appropriate. I do not actually do that.
But this is something where we should be concerned about the individual. I reiterate that when we have a committee inquiry it is a very political process. Things do get played out, different questions get asked that can be quite damaging. I am very concerned about that and I do find this a very difficult one because I do know that Mr Buchanan is saying he wants to do this. But I do have concerns for him that this is something that could actually very much damage him, the fact that it goes on the public record.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video