Page 1396 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 11 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I brought the matter up in the Assembly. The then Attorney-General, Mr Collaery, said that the matter should not be discussed as it was sub judice. I said, "Where is the evidence of that?", and he said, "There is the evidence". It was a note on his table that said that the matter was before the courts. I said, "That is not evidence; that is just a note from someone in your bureaucracy". He said, "I will take you to the section head", and I said, "Okay". The man stood in front of me at the back of the old Assembly and said that he had seen the writs put out by the person I was representing. I thought that was interesting because I had not heard anything about it. But here was the man saying, "I have seen the writs". I happened to have the fellow upstairs in my office, and I said to him, "I have just been told that someone has seen writs you issued". He said, "Do not believe it; I did not issue any writs". Unfortunately, nothing happened to that public servant who stood at the back of this Assembly and lied to me in order to prevent that matter being brought up.
There was another case in this Assembly that we all know about, and it could relate to what the Chief Minister mentioned earlier. She said, "Officers are required to disclose evidence of corruption and misconduct". In other words, the requirement is already there; why do we need anything? That is one of the most amazing statements anyone in Canberra could imagine - and there are some amazing statements made in this place. Why is it necessary? For a start, a public servant can make a complaint and then be talked to by people in the department and decide not to make what is referred to as a formal complaint. We have an interesting situation: When is a complaint not a complaint? The answer is: When it suits the power brokers. There are two laws - one for those who hold the power and one for the rest of the people.
The whistleblower legislation that is being introduced around Australia is to protect those courageous individuals who are prepared to stand up knowing full well what the inevitable consequences have been in the past for other people who have done the same thing. At least they do not shoot people; but the sort of thing I have seen - the mental harassment - is of an extreme nature. I saw a documentary on television many years ago - it may have been on Four Corners - which chronicled about five people in different areas of the Commonwealth Government who had blown the whistle. Every one of them had left their job for one reason or another. Every one of them had fairly severe mental depression. It had been going on for years and years. Some had been involved in expensive litigation, their names had been dragged through the mud, and so on. Most people here would remember the case of Eddie Azzopardi in Sydney, who blew the whistle and was subjected to a campaign of harassment. As fortune would have it, because Eddie is a fairly tenacious sort of a guy, he won in court not that many months ago.
Ms Follett also mentioned that the relocation principle was not necessary. I would think it was demanded. At least you can move people out of the heat for a while and let them carry on some sort of productive work while the matter is looked at. The Chief Minister mentioned that department heads and others can take action. Of course they can, but what we are concerned about is corruption. We are concerned about the fact that action is not taken. There is too much political covering up going on.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .