Page 992 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 17 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
imagine that Mr Hanson has read the Public Interest Disclosure Act. I have been involved a number of times when the Public Interest Disclosure Act has been used, and I cannot think, in any of those examples, of where the person leading that investigation has been named publicly. There are very strict confidentiality provisions in the Public Interest Disclosure Act, let alone—
Opposition members interjecting—
MR SPEAKER: Folks, you will get a chance to ask supplementaries.
MS GALLAGHER: the fact that the person undertaking that work did not want to be named, for some quite legitimate reasons. I was advised, through legal advice, that a public official should not comment on a public interest disclosure process. However, I did go out—
Mr Hanson: You started it the day before the announcement—
MR SPEAKER: Mr Hanson!
MS GALLAGHER: Mr Hanson, if you could just for a moment listen, I know it is hard for you, but I said the person was external to ACT Health and had particular experience in dealing with workplace matters, particularly in relation to workplace relationships, and I went out with the terms of reference for that review. That is much further than I was advised I should go out, and I did. I stopped short of naming the individual, and that was at the individual’s request and because of the fact that I had been given advice not to comment further. I looked at that advice; I went further and released the information around the terms of reference, and now the process should be left to be conducted in accordance with the legislation that all members in this place have supported.
It cannot go one way. We cannot have a process where people say they want to be treated confidentially when they participate; they want protections so that they are not victimised if they participate. So we set up a system. We used the legislation that has been designed specifically to allow for that type of investigation. And then the opposition say that I am not being public enough; I am not releasing enough information. Well, I released more information than I probably should have. I cannot think of any other public interest disclosure process where any minister would come in and say, “By the way, this is the person doing it, these are the terms of reference for it, and here’s a website you can go to and see what everybody’s saying about it.” How ridiculous are you?
There is an investigation under the Public Interest Disclosure Act. This creates the environment for everyone to participate in. It protects everybody who participates in it. It provides natural justice to those who may be complained about. And at the end of it, there will be an outcome. It is at that point that further information will be made public.
Mr Smyth: It is outrageous.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video