Page 2366 - Week 06 - Thursday, 23 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
access to workplace rights, as would be available to others. While I do appreciate that Mr Corbell has outlined a number of steps, I think the issue is still about being on secondment and what rights are available to someone if a situation like this arises. That is why we will be standing by the amendment, which I will move later.
While I do not wish to pass judgement about the complaints made and believe it is inappropriate to do so, I am concerned that there appears to be perhaps a hole in ACT industrial relations policies that needs to be considered further.
There is a question of how to proceed on two distinct matters, I believe, in this situation and in what we are discussing today. The first is how to resolve concerns about Mr Buchanan’s industrial relations case specifically and the second is how to address any gaps in industrial relations policy applying to people on secondment.
With regard to Mr Buchanan and the suggestion that the JACS committee look into this matter, I appreciate that Mr Buchanan says this is something he wants to happen, and I have talked to him about it. It was quite apparent, however, from my conversation with Mr Buchanan that what was involved with the committee process had not been explained to him. The process of privilege had not been explained to him, in that while he was protected by privilege, so were other witnesses, including government and departments. Nor had it been explained to him who would be doing the questioning and the actual reporting process.
I would have thought this was something Mr Hanson would have explained to him quite clearly. It was quite clear that it was not explained to him at any point, because he asked me a lot of questions about this process and he did not know anything about the committee process. That was apparent to me.
It does raise major concerns for me in that Mr Hanson would be using an individual, in a very vulnerable position I might add, for political ends. It also seemed that proceeding with a committee inquiry had been suggested to Mr Buchanan and it was not something he had specifically asked for. However, I will stand corrected on that, if that is not the case.
Likewise, I am concerned about what the government would do in a committee inquiry, in terms of what information would be provided on this person’s case. I have told Mr Buchanan that I am very concerned about using that process, as everything will be public and go on the record. While he has been in the media, he was not aware of the fact that whatever was said in the committee would go on the record and would be there to be used at any point in time during his lifetime, basically. I am also concerned that there is little protection or support for him in that process. I do believe that a process needs to be pursued that is fair and provides protection to all parties. An Assembly committee is not going to do that. Information that comes out of this process, as I have already said, could cause long-term damage.
What is more likely to work is the public interest disclosure process, which provides much stronger protections to Mr Buchanan if he needs or wants it, while ensuring his access to natural justice. A public interest disclosure process could take longer than an Assembly inquiry, but it is a safer option. It provides legal protection which an Assembly inquiry does not.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video