Page 4482 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 23 November 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
detrimental effects on those who put the PID in and those who are the subject of the PID. As in so many cases, there are always two sides to each story. But what we need to do is to avoid getting to that stage as it is.
So, in regard to the motion before us, yes, we recognise the importance of creating a culture in the public service that responds positively to internal criticism and concern, and that can only be done with leadership from the senior managers and their being in touch with what is happening in their workplaces and making sure that small things do not fester, as the report says, into larger things.
Paragraph (2) acknowledges the potential for ongoing serious personal cost to all parties involved in complaints about a workplace. I think we all know that that is true. What we have got to do is to again avoid getting to that position where people feel that they have to go to a PID. When the PID is made, we also have to ensure that both sides are heard fairly, that both sides are represented in the reports that are put in place and that natural justice occurs.
Paragraph (3) talks about the process and that there has been a full investigation. Well, I think there are some things that still have not been investigated and that could be addressed more. It mentions the three reports that were tabled; the minister has responded. Paragraph (4) calls on the government to ensure recommended strategies are sufficiently supported and scrutinised. Well, he has qualified that—there will not necessarily be the support—and the scrutiny will be as we have now; it is not going to get any better because I do not believe the minister is seriously interested in resolving this issue.
MR SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (11.07): I welcome the responses of the government and the opposition to the motion. I am happy that it is going through and I just remind members that it is very much a motion that resulted from collaboration in the first place.
I will respond to some of the points made by Mr Corbell and Mr Smyth. Mr Corbell put on the record that agreement from the government to this motion did not imply that there suddenly was going to be a deep well of funding available. But, while we of course are very concerned that there be adequate funding, both for the program to run and for changes as recommended to be implemented, we are very keen to be engaged in the robust debates that will occur around that at estimates committees in looking at community sector budget submissions and being involved in debates in the house.
This motion is much less about funding and much more about scrutiny and support, and that is why we are going to need and call for regular briefings. Having been in this place for a year, the way I see the different parties, just through division of labour and the realistic use of our resources, is that a lot of these sorts of roles of health issues, at the community level, are where the Greens are probably more focused. We do not have the resources to regard, for instance, the whole of government in the detail that we would like. I have noted that the Liberals tend to focus on issues at the pointier end of the health system—the waiting lists and so on. I must say that I appreciate that, because I do not have the resources to do that detailed work, but I just point out that it was the Greens that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .