Page 3372 - Week 08 - Thursday, 23 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I do not think I have ever mentioned this—mainly because I have never been asked—but in relation to Doug Buchanan I did not even know he was opposed to a needle and syringe program until I heard him on the radio one morning. It was not an issue that had ever been raised with me. So I think it is a bit of a leap to say that he was forced out because of his opposition to a needle and syringe program. I am not sure I ever met Doug Buchanan. I certainly was not aware of his views on a needle and syringe program.
In relation to some of the issues in the hospital, when the obstetrics matter was treated as a public interest disclosure—and this is something that the Leader of the Opposition fails to acknowledge—that was not a decision taken by a minister. I think they have pursued me for a couple of years since then, saying that I have tried to sweep that under the carpet, when anyone with knowledge of the public interest disclosure legislation, any member who read it, would be aware that I have not even been provided with the report, nor will I, nor am I able to be provided with that report, nor is it able to be publicly released. Whilst we have had years of criticism of this, we have not had one idea, one bill, one piece of legislation, that will address some of the deficiencies that the Liberal opposition are now claiming, four years into the term.
To complain about public interest disclosure and its inadequacies for years and then come in here and say, “Yeah, okay, we will support it but it’s a rather hopeless approach anyway,” I think is disingenuous. It demeans the work that has been done by the public service in getting this bill to where it is today, including the involvement of people such as Dr AJ Brown, who have helped enormously in drafting this legislation, and the work that has gone into the exposure draft.
From an Assembly point of view—and this is something the next Assembly should think about—the preparedness of this Assembly to pursue individual public servants in this forum is disgraceful, with the naming of people. I know of several public servants who have left the ACT public service because of the fear that their names will be used under parliamentary privilege in this place. I know that Mr Seselja does not mention any of those but I have frequently been approached by public servants who certainly do not raise concerns about any bullying that can be attributed to me, Mr Seselja. And I challenge you to find one public servant that would stand there and say that. But I have had several approaches from public servants who have actually left here because of the position that the Liberal opposition has taken and the preparedness to haul them in front of trumped-up inquiries and have their names and their reputations demeaned in this place. That is the reality.
This is an issue that the next Assembly genuinely needs to deal with. If you want good people staying in good jobs in the ACT public service, the Assembly need to consider how prepared they are to tramp on people’s reputations through a public forum. I know Mr Seselja will just pooh-pooh that idea. It is a genuine concern for a government of any political colour or persuasion—the smallness of our jurisdiction, the smallness of the community and the ability to publicly humiliate good, hardworking officers.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video