Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2015 Week 03 Hansard (Wednesday, 18 March 2015) . . Page.. 876 ..


This individual focus limits self-reflection.

It also says that a focus on evaluation is important. The summary is:

Understanding, identifying unacceptable behaviour is crucial to creating an acceptable culture. Establishing and enforcing appropriate procedures for unacceptable behaviour is necessary.

Bullying does not appear in the section. This is why, Mr Rattenbury, this report should be made public. But what does the Canberra Times say about what the O2C report says? It says:

In one workshop, the author said the anger of participants was both “palpable and visible”.

The relationships were described as “unprofessional, harassing in the broadest sense of the word”. The article continues:

Some workers surveyed by the consultants spoke of the service being a boys’ club rife with nepotism, and institutionalised bullying by senior staff.

Another spoke of a culture of shifting problems or covering them up.

None of this appears in this report. Let’s go through it. We will try one more, “Implementation of respect equity diversity framework”. It says:

… ACTAS does not sufficiently adhere to it, but it is getting better. The RED framework is not seen to be lived in the ACTAS.

That is one quote. Yet what are the actual results in the report? The O2C report also notes:

The organisation was given a strikingly poor result by surveyed workers for its performance against the ACT public service respect, equity and diversity framework, which the report said it neither adhered to nor endorsed.

If you listen to the minister, it is okay; it is getting better. Those surveyed said there was a perception that managers were prepared to eliminate harassment and bullying. According to the Canberra Times, the O2C report noted the organisation was given a strikingly poor result. That, members, is why this report must be tabled.

We do not know what we are fixing. Therefore, we do not know which bits of this report, as released by the minister, are doctored and have been sanitised. This is embarrassing. It does have a little footnote, footnote 13. The review finds ACTAS is no different:

Investigation of specific claims was beyond the O2C remit.

That begs the question: what were the specific claims, were they investigated and what were the outcomes? We know that disciplinary processes in the ACTAS were


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video