Page 657 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 22 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mrs Dunne said that this bill will not do a thing. Mrs Dunne, the apparent expert on bullying, knows more about bullying than experts in the field—as I have already outlined, work safe bodies in Victoria and Queensland and also unions. The Canberra Liberals, once again, will only talk about bullying when they can get some political mileage out of it. Here is a chance to actually achieve some long-term change and they will not support it.
On the issue which Mrs Dunne raised about the council, we acknowledged and actually supported Mrs Dunne’s inclusion of “employer representative”. It is a shame that Mrs Dunne could not accept that graciously. We will use the term “old parties” because, frankly, the ideas here today, particularly from the Canberra Liberals, are tired and old. In fact, there were no ideas actually put forward—just opposition, as per usual.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Detail stage
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 4.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (4.48): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 698] and table a supplementary explanatory statement.
This amendment, like the remainder of the amendments I will move, is a minor amendment that I have prepared in cooperation with the government as well as in response to queries raised by the Liberal Party. My understanding until very recently was that these amendments would have support of the government, and I prepared them in good faith. I have now learned—yesterday in fact—that neither the government nor the Liberal Party intends to support the key part of the legislation with or without the amendments. I refer to the key section of the bill that requires the inspectorate to have inspectors with specialist expertise in bullying matters. Nevertheless I will move these amendments for members’ interest.
I briefly explain the amendment. Instead of saying “the regulator must appoint”, we now use the words “the regulator must ensure”. This addresses a technical concern the government raised that specialist bullying inspectors also performing general duties might need to be appointed formally under different sections. I was happy to alter the wording to remove any doubt. The amendment adds a requirement that the regulator ensures there are enough specialist bullying inspectors. This makes it clear that the inspectorate must continue to assess the extent of bullying issues and the size of the inspectorate and to ensure that the number of bullying inspectors is adequate. There must still be a minimum of three bullying inspectors, as in the original bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video