Page 314 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 7 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
DR FOSKEY: I will not name the company then.
Mrs Dunne: material that has been circulated by members of the union that relate to this incident. Dr Foskey is retailing stuff that had been circulated by the union before this became an industrial relations tribunal matter. Now it has become an industrial relations tribunal matter, I think that we were ranging fairly close to sub judice on this matter by adverting to incidents that were in the lead-up to these things, and I think it is not fair on the company or the individual involved.
MR SPEAKER: I cannot discern that what Dr Foskey has referred to is related to the case which is before the industrial relations commission. She plainly puts it in the vein that they are different cases it seems to me.
Mrs Dunne: Mr Speaker, any of us who have read the documentation that has been circulated to members on this matter know that all of the cases are closely related and they move sequentially one from the other. As a result of this I think that there is a strong link and I think that we should be erring on the side of caution and not debating these matters. I think that the matter should be adjourned until—
DR FOSKEY: Anyway, I have finished that part of the speech.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you for your forbearance. The difficulty that the chair has here is discerning what is related to the case. It has been said that this person was a first aid officer and—
DR FOSKEY: I have not referred to that person.
MR SPEAKER: Well, it has been said that this person was a first aid officer, and it is in the motion, and by referring to matters which the first aid officer might logically attend to could touch on evidence. We have no way of knowing what is going to be led in evidence in these matters. If you touch on matters which concern what the first aid officer might have been doing, I think you run the risk of touching on evidence that could be led—for whatever reason; we can’t know. So I would caution you against touching on issues which might impinge upon the matter which is before the industrial relations commission. My caution here is about affecting the rights of either party; that is our job—to concern ourselves about those issues. So, Dr Foskey, you should not refer to matters which—
DR FOSKEY: I would like to move on to political interpretation, which I believe is fairly safe.
MR SPEAKER: Yes, of course.
DR FOSKEY: I would like to point to a conflict between the Thiess injury management procedure and the ACT Workers Compensation Act. Our act requires, reasonably I believe, that injured workers can see a doctor of their choice. The company concerned requires such workers to visit a doctor that it determines, and that they be accompanied by a supervisor, who must be allowed to accompany the worker into the surgery.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .