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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2016 Week 01 Hansard (Thursday, 11 February 2016) . . Page.. 250 ..

MADAM SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Mr Hanson.

MR HANSON: Beyond the issue of tasers, what are you doing to guarantee the safety of our front-line police officers?

MR CORBELL: I have every confidence that the funding arrangements and the contractual arrangements the government has with ACT Policing deliver to ACT Policing the operational environment they need to do their job efficiently and safely.

Trade unions—royal commission

MR COE: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Workplace Safety and Industrial Relations. Yesterday, in this place, you referred to the findings of the trade union royal commission as shabby and the royal commission as a mud-slinging exercise. Minister, if you regard the commission as a mud-slinging exercise, does that mean that your directorate will not be cooperating with any referrals from the commission to the government?

MR GENTLEMAN: I thank Mr Coe for his question and his reference to yesterday’s most engaging debate about the trade union royal commission and its purpose. Madam Speaker, in that debate I highlighted the trade union royal commission’s paper, which noted that rather than looking at factual evidence or rules of evidence it looked at delivering its report. But, having said that, I can assure you that any interactions with my directorate would be happily engaged with.

MADAM SPEAKER: A supplementary question, Mr Coe.

MR COE: Minister, how can it be that a mud-slinging exercise also warrants investigation from your directorate?

MR GENTLEMAN: My answer was that my directorate would engage with such actions. Whilst I have a view, there are also lawful actions that we should take. If you look at the most recent media on this, Madam Speaker, you will see that when engaging with different agencies in the government, they have responded by saying they would require evidence that is within the rules of evidence, evidence which is admissible in a court and which can then be dealt with.

MADAM SPEAKER: A supplementary question, Mr Wall.

MR WALL: Minister, did your directorate provide any information or evidence to the royal commission?

MR GENTLEMAN: I would have to seek some further advice, but certainly they briefed me on the royal commission and some of its findings. I have not inquired of them if they provided any evidence to the commission.

MADAM SPEAKER: A supplementary question, Mr Wall.

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