Page 886 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 18 March 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The minister was upset that I used the words “toxic management culture”. That is what the union called it. I do not know what this report is addressing because it is not detailed. We do not know the nature of the problem because it is not detailed. We do not know the scope of the problem because it is not detailed. We do not know the penetration of the problem through the staff because it is not detailed. We do not know who is perpetrating the problem because it is not detailed. We do not know what the government is fixing. Apparently the minister does—that is okay because she has parked the report; it is off on the side. To use her words, “I have parked the report to the side. It sits to the side.” Well, while it is sitting on the side, it will continue to fester, because people will not know if it is worth standing up and having the courage to come out and say, “These are the problems as I see it.”
We heard the report is a confronting read. I suspect if you have a toxic management culture it probably is a confronting read. If one looks at the quotes in the Canberra Times this morning, it sounds like it is a confronting read. But we do not have any of that analysis. We do not know what was said. If we go to the section headed “Implementation of respect equity diversity framework”, it seems there was some sort of feedback. What was the feedback? Surely there is a summary that says, “Ninety per cent were happy and 10 per cent were unhappy,” or “Ninety per cent were unhappy and 10 per cent were happy,” but we are not even allowed to know that, Mr Rattenbury. So I challenge you—
MADAM SPEAKER: Standing order 42, Mr Smyth.
MR SMYTH: Through you, Madam Speaker, I challenge Mr Rattenbury—he can have leave to speak again—to stand up, having read the report no doubt, and tell us the scope, the nature and the penetration of the problem and, indeed, if somebody is part of the problem. I do not think he can—and I know he will not—because it is not contained here. We have got the minister’s answer to a problem that is totally undefined except that she is upset by the use of the words “toxic management culture”. That was the start of it. They are not my words; they are the words of the TWU. The O2C report was to address that, but we are not allowed to see that.
We have the government’s answer in a highly sanitised way. What did the minister say? “The core of the findings remains the same.” So even the findings are not the findings of the report, but the core of it is there. You only have to read section 4.1, finding 1, “Nature of the workforce”, to know that what it talks about is not what the summary refers to, that finding 2, “Blaming and bullying”, is not what the summary refers to and that finding 3, “Implementation of respect equity diversity framework”, does not relate to the body of what is in the text.
How can one have any confidence in the report when it has been butchered so badly—one, I suspect to protect Mr Corbell and the government and, two, to set the minister up on a path so she can fix these things? We know the minister has form on this. You only have to go back to the care and protection issues where the minister covered her ears and said, “La, la, la, la, la. Not listening; don’t want to hear it,” and then came out with a blueprint. “I’ve got a problem. We’ll have a blueprint.” If Mr Rattenbury wants some credibility on this, instead of ringing the head of the TWU perhaps he should have rung the gentleman that has been handling it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video