ACT Corrections Minister Shane Rattenbury has hit back at a former Chief Minister's claim he lied about a government decision to allow the prison officer's union a veto over a needle exchange program at Canberra's prison.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Mr Rattenbury said earlier this year former chief minister Jon Stanhope had given the union a veto over the potential program, which Mr Stanhope said last week was wrong, and he had always intended to allow the union consultation only.
There remains no resolution on the proposal, which could help reduce blood-borne virus rates in the Alexander Maconochie Centre, but also pose potential safety risks to correctional officers, after correctional staff overwhelmingly voted against it in 2016.
But former ACT legislator Michael Moore, a prominent public health advocate, reignited the debate in recent weeks, urging the government act via legislation, which could override a clause in the government's enterprise bargaining agreement with the Community and Public Sector Union about the proposal.
Documents released under Freedom of Information to Mr Stanhope show the former chief minister never intended for the union to have veto power, rather only that they be consulted on the proposal before it was implemented.
Mr Stanhope has said those documents prove he did not institute a veto, in rejecting Mr Rattenbury's claim he put the veto in place and that Mr Rattenbury had lied about the matter.
But Mr Rattenbury has now responded, saying that given the union took the issue to Fair Work Australia, and it had decided the relevant clause in the agreement did give such a power to the union, Mr Stanhope's efforts to re-write history did not cut it.
The documents released under FOI confirm that it was the Stanhope government's commitment to only allow consultation on the matter.
But a strict reading of the clause, which includes "agreement" by the union to any needle exchange program, as interpreted by the FWA, shows it does need the agreement of both the union and government before implementing the policy.
Mr Rattenbury said that Mr Stanhope did not have a leg to stand on on the issue, given the FWA ruling, and he the wording of the clause had hampered subsequent corrections ministers' hamstrung on the policy.
While changes were made to allow staff a vote on the matter, the issue could remain unresolved for years unless the government looks to legislative options to overrule the agreement.
