Gerard P. Craughwell: Defence consultation failing, Sec Gen role questioned

Thanks very much indeed, Chair. Ms King, you have a long reputation and a very strong reputation in public representation for workers in this country. Do you believe that the Defence Forces representative associations are getting enough time with you, with your body? Because I don't believe that they, we wanted them as part of your body and we were, if it was rejected out of hand by the Minister, while at the same time the Minister allowed the Sec Gen to be an ex-officio member. And we saw at the last meeting the Sec Gen questioning the Chief of Staff, which to my mind undermines your independence. So are you getting enough time with the representative bodies to hear their concerns and what's your view on the Sec Gen being a member, an ex-officio member, who's responsible to say, sorry Sec Gen, you can't engage in this? Because we were assured at that time that there would be limitations on what the Sec Gen could do. I know you addressed that earlier, but maybe just again to just reiterate it in a second. We've never seen anything other than we have, we work well as a body, we believe access to the Sec Gen at that level is actually positive from our perspective so that's how it, in terms of the representative associations, we meet about 15 times a year. We have never put any form of barrier in relation to meeting representative associations, so we're happy to do that for as often as it's necessary, so we don't have any, you know, you only meet every quarter or anything, we don't have any of that, we don't carry on with that, we'll meet them every day if that's what's required, no issue with it. We understand the value of representative associations. That for instance is why the as I referred to earlier, we're making a plea that the consultation process, the engagement process with their employer starts to become much more robust and starts to listen, starts to hear what people are saying. That's really important as well, so we're trying to influence that so we see the representative association and our consultation with them to be a very positive thing as well. You're open to them contacting you at any stage? Absolutely. Fantastic. If I could just make a comment on the last point that was made. I would feel there is insufficient consultation between the representative association and the Defence Force Management given the nature and scale and complexity of the transformation needed, and that has to be genuine consultation as is clearly understood in all industries and companies what consultation means. There will be a point there is a complex arbitration or conciliation scheme in place that's outside of that, and I think there's a philosophical debate to be had about what that means in Defence Forces, and then a practical manifestation or implementation of that to improve the level of consultation, and we are well open to having that consultation with the representative associations, and we have challenged the representative associations to come to the table genuinely in the spirit of consultation, while at the same time reserving their right to negotiate what they need to negotiate on, and we have also challenged the Defence Forces leadership to come to the table in that context also. Just one last point. The word zero tolerance is out there all the time, and I fear that due process has been set aside, and for example there isn't legislation yet to allow for the suspension of members of the Defence Forces and things like that, so are you watching that space to make sure that we stay within legal parameters to ensure they don't? We are very conscious of what the current Bill says in relation to suspension and in relation to dismissal, and we did write to the Minister and it's on the public record as well when all of that issue about the necessity for clearer direction on suspension was raised, we gave our view to the Minister in relation to that, and we felt it should be on a legislative basis, so we're very conscious of all of that. We don't want to deny anybody their rights or entitlements in relation to that either, so from our perspective of course we're very conscious of that. Just a very minor additional point, we're definitely conscious of the need for due process, but we have been impatient as well to make sure that due process is not used as an excuse for inaction, so we would have been very supportive of the recommendations of the Ward Report, which you're now seeing in the legislation before you on suspension, because without that shift, the existing due process protected bad behaviour and brought risks into the workplace, so getting back to Patricia's point earlier about one of the things that gets us up in the morning and into meetings of this body is that safety in the workplace, peace, and not to have, for the Chief of Staff, not to have a mechanism to remove somebody who was a risk pending an investigation was a lacuna in due process that actually you could hide behind, so we're mindful of that as well, that there's due process and then there's a need for proper process. Well, I don't think the carer indeed has been involved in a case in another organisation where due process allowed somebody to stay in situ for an extended period, but you walk a very tight rope when you say we must protect the individual from somebody who, albeit has not yet been found guilty of a crime, but the dogs in the street are screaming that the crime was committed, so it is a hugely difficult problem, but innocence, the right of one's being innocent before being proved guilty, that is a very serious issue and you rightly point out, Miss King, the structure of the Defence Forces, it is rank based, so if your Colonel says you're suspended, you're suspended and that's it, so it is a huge problem I think.