Page 1361 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 13 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
which they will now have to investigate. If you do not stamp out bullying when it first comes to your attention then it will linger and it will fester, and it will increase.
We know that previously—what was it Ms Gallagher said? “The 10-year war in obstetrics”—there have been claims of bullying in TAMS. Mr Doszpot has for years tried to get to the bottom of the bullying at CIT. The government’s response to that bullying, I think, could only be described as ineffectual at best. Again, if we do not take a stand on this then it will continue. Recommendation 4 says:
The Committee recommends that the ACT Government ensure, until such time as the conflict that exists between the obligations in relation to addressing bullying complaints contained within the two regulatory instruments currently in force is addressed, that the minimum standard for notification of bullying complaints should apply.
The government have agreed with that. Indeed, they say:
ACTPS industrial agreements set out procedures for the investigation of complaints of misconduct, and care should be taken in drawing systemic conclusions from a single case.
That may be the case, but this is a case that was not even investigated. Here was a paramedic of long standing in the service, of high regard amongst his peers, who had made a complaint and was ignored. That is simply shameful and to the disgrace of the ESA, the directorate and the minister. It is unfortunate that it took a provisional improvement notice from WorkSafe, which was meant to be pinned up all around the workplaces—apparently it was in some but not necessarily in all, I have been told—to say, “We’ve got a problem here. You’ve got to fix these things from the start.” It is pleasing to see that, at least through the Treasurer, the government’s response is that they agree to this approach. It will be interesting to see if all the ministers and all the directorates follow through on that.
The other recommendation was a recommendation about an inclusion threshold. We have a line in the appropriation—I think it is $14,000—for the education department for supplementation for wages. The reason given that it was in the budget at all was simply, “Well, everybody else was told to do it and we were told to do it so that we are all consistent.” If a department with the many hundreds of millions of dollars that the education directorate has cannot find $14,000 then there is seriously something wrong with the approach of the minister, or the management of the department.
It is pleasing to see that the government say that, yes, they agree and the government will consider the appropriate balance between setting a threshold and ensuring consistency and accountability. That is a reasonable way forward. Clearly, $14,000 for some of the very, very small agencies may be a considerable amount of money. If you have a budget in the hundreds of millions of dollars and you cannot find $14,000 then I think you are kidding yourself.
That said, it is pleasing that most of the recommendations have been agreed to. A couple are only noted, but we will watch with interest as the government looks at those. For instance, I know that a huge issue for Mrs Jones is Hibberson Street. People
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video