Page 2368 - Week 06 - Thursday, 23 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
disappointing that we will not be getting anything out of today. Again, this is about the welfare of Mr Buchanan.
I note that Mr Corbell said that there had not been any processes exercised. My concern in relation to what Mr Corbell said, about not using avenues, is that it seemed to me from speaking to Mr Buchanan that nobody has actually explained those processes to him or told him about them. Again, I will stand corrected if that is not the case, but that seems to be what has happened.
The motivation of Mr Hanson is quite clear to me, if not blatant. The question I put to Mr Hanson is: what skills do members of this place and the committee in question have to deal with someone who is in a very vulnerable position and then deal with the consequences of what might come out of that process? In fact, should we be putting them in that position? That is something we should be thinking about. So we will not be supporting the Liberals’ motion. I move the amendment circulated in my name:
Omit all words after “That this Assembly”, substitute:
“calls on the ACT Government to:
(1) facilitate the public interest disclosure process for the former Superintendent of the Alexander Maconochie Centre about the termination of his secondment to the ACT Public Service, if that is a process which the former Superintendent wishes to pursue; and
(2) report back to the Assembly by the last sitting day in August 2011 about:
(a) what industrial rights are available to workers seconded to the ACT Public Service;
(b) how they compare with the rights of permanent ACT public servants; and
(c) if action needs to be taken to raise the level of rights available to people on secondment.”.
I have already spoken to it and what it entails. I urge the Canberra Liberals in particular to rethink what they have already said and to support this so that we can have an appropriate process that protects the individual and gives him redress.
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (11.25): We will not be supporting the Greens’ amendment, because what it does is remove any scrutiny of this incident. We know from previous examples, such as the bullying case at the Canberra Hospital, that the Public Interest Disclosure Act will just serve to bury this as deeply as it can go and the minister will be able to claim deniability. We will all be banned from talking about it ever again and we will all go about our business. No-one will know what has occurred.
The Greens have got this fake concern about Mr Buchanan’s welfare as their excuse for not supporting this. They are saying that this is where they are going. I have spoken to Mr Buchanan and I am aware of the conversation between the Greens and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video