Peter Cavanagh, AKA Boofon March 12, 2026 at 7:22 am
The privileges committee should be looking at the Labor crew, all hanging around town when they are required in their electorates, where the only thing stopping the fighting is the flooding.
I want to be clear that I do not support bullying in any workplace.
However, I find the NT Labor Opposition current outrage about workplace bullying rather curious.
The then NT Labor Government and now NT Opposition feel it is appropriate to be speaking so strongly and expressing outrage about workplace bullying but when they were the then NT Labor Government, they spent numerous taxpayer dollars protecting then CEO of an NT Public Service Department, Mr Andrew Kirkman in an NT Work Health Court matter.
The silence at the time was deafening by the then NT Labor Government.
This occurred both before and after an unprecedented 16 day court hearing that found Mr Andrew Kirkman had caused a serious mental health injury to a female staff member. The judge also found his conduct included swearing, table-thumping, and behaviour that was aggressive, dismissive, insensitive and inappropriate.
In the decision of the Northern Territory Work Heakth Court in [2024] NTWHC 2 Maria Rust v Northern Territory of Australia (8 July 2024), Judge John Neill found that the CEO Mr Andrew Kirkman of an NT Public Service Department told employee Ms Maria Rust that her career would be destroyed if she complained about him.
In the Northern Territory Work Health Court decision [2024] NTWHC 2 Maria Rust v Northern Territory of Australia (8 July 2024) Judge John Neill states at paragraph [61] – “On the basis of Mr. Andrew Kirkman’s volume and tone of voice and interruptions of Mrs Maria Rust in the recording of the meeting, on the basis of the transcript of the recording, of the admissions made by Mr. Andrew Kirkman to the Investigator Ms Raelene Burke set out above, and of the admissions and concessions of Mr. Andrew Kirkman set out above in his evidence before me, I am satisfied and I find that in the course of the recorded part of the meeting on 30 July 2021 Andrew Kirkman, the CEO of the NT Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Logistics, behaved toward the Ms Maria Rust, an A06 clerk in his Department, in an aggressive, threatening, dismissive, insensitive and inappropriate manner.”
In the subsequent decision [2024] NTWHC 2 Maria Rust v Northern Territory of Australia (Costs) (31 July 2024) Judge John Neill also awarded 100 % costs against the Northern Territory Government in this case.
There was extensive media coverage of this matter at the time, yet the NT Labor Government at the time remained silent.
Where was the outrage then? Where were the demands for answers and accountability back then?
Pot calling the kettle black…NT ALP blatant hypocrisy as the 2016-19 ALP CM Gunner, CoS Leonardi, Media CEO Rowston & DCM CEO Ryan who colluded with NT News Editor Matt Williams were predators & bullies who targeted prey. Let’s not forget 2020-24 COVID Bioweapon mandated intimidation & fear driven by their mainstream media cabal ABC, Mix 104.9, NT News, Channel 9. ALP need a mirror for reflection.
Workplace abuse exists in the Northern Territory and if our politicians can display best practice in dealing with abuse then once again that the Northern Territory Politicians are still very immature with dealing with abuse (which is illegal).
Workplace bullying is illegal in Australia under federal and state laws. The Fair Work Act 2009 defines and prohibits bullying—defined as repeated, unreasonable behavior creating a health risk—and allows workers to apply to the Fair Work Commission for stop-bullying orders. Employers also have a duty to ensure safety under WHS laws.
Albeit this Fair Work Commission decision of Deputy President Gerard Boyce [2021] FWC 2200 Stephen Hanson (AB2019/196) v Regional Express (REX) Airlines (22 April 2021) was overturned by the Full decision [2021] FWCFB 2755 on 21 May 2021 the summary from paragraphs [24] to [29] in Deputy President Gerard Boyce are a good summary of the legislation and pertinent case authorities in relation sections 789FD and 789FF of the Fair Work Act (Cth).
“[24] Firstly, the test imposed is an objective one, with the measure of “reasonability” being a question of fact. In other words, the impugned behaviour will be caught by s.789FD if a reasonable person (having regard to all the facts and circumstances) may consider it to be unreasonable. [25] Secondly, the word “repeatedly” must be applied, meaning that a single incidence of unreasonable behaviour will fall outside the scope of the section. 11 Beyond a single incidence, however, there is no specific number of incidences required to meet the requirement for “repeated” (unreasonable) behaviour.12 [26] Thirdly, the impugned behaviour must also “create a risk to the health and safety”. In this regard, in Re SB, 13 Commissioner Hampton stated: “[44] The unreasonable behaviour must also create a risk to health and safety. Therefore there must be a causal link between the behaviour and the risk to health and safety. Cases on causation in other contexts suggest that the behaviour does not have to be the only cause of the risk, provided that it was a substantial cause of the risk viewed in a common sense and practical way. This would seem to be equally applicable here. [45] A risk to health and safety means the possibility of danger to health and safety and is not confined to actual danger to health and safety. The ordinary meaning of ‘risk’ is exposure to the chance of injury or loss. In the sense used in this provision, the risk must also be real and not simply conceptual”. 14 [27] Fourthly, the worker must have been bullied “at work”. 15 [28] Fifthly, in relation to s 789FF(1), as the Full Bench in Mekuria v Mecca Brands Pty Ltd said: 16 “[29] Apart from the requirement for an application to have been made under s.789FC, s.789FF(1) establishes two prerequisites: first, the Commission must be satisfied that the worker has been bullied at work by an individual or group of individuals and, second, the Commission must be satisfied that there is a risk that the worker will continue to be bullied at work by the individual or group. The use of the definite article in s 789FF(1)(b)(ii) in connection with the individual or group of individuals indicates that they must be the same as the individual or group of individuals considered for the purpose of s 789FF(1)(b)(i). That is, it is not sufficient to satisfy the second condition in s 789FF(1)(b)(ii) by demonstrating that there is a risk of being bullied at work by individuals other than those who have been found to have engaged in bullying pursuant to s 789FF(1)(b)(i).” 17 [29] Sixthly, even if a worker is able to establish the impugned behaviour satisfies the criteria in sub-s.789FD(1) of the Act, sub-s.789(2) of the Act operates to qualify the impugned behaviour if that behaviour is “reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner”. As to the operation of sub-s.789(2), again I rely on Commissioner Hampton’s considerations in Re SB: “[47] Section 789FD(2) of the FW Act is not so much an “exclusion” but a qualification which reinforces that bullying conduct must of itself be unreasonable. It also emphasises the right of management to take reasonable management action in the workplace. [48] The Explanatory Memorandum refers to management decision and decisions about how work is to be carried out. This suggests that the term may be required to be given a wide meaning under s.789FD(2) and that the Legislature intended everyday actions to effectively direct and control the way work is carried out to be covered by the exclusion. [49] Determining whether management action is reasonable requires an objective assessment of the action in the context of the circumstances and knowledge of those involved at the time. Without limiting that assessment, the considerations might include: • the circumstances that led to and created the need for the management action to be taken. • the circumstances while the management action was being taken; and • the consequences that flowed from the management action. [50] The specific ‘attributes and circumstances’ of the situation including the emotional state and psychological health of the worker involved may also be relevant. [51] The test is whether the management action was reasonable, not whether it could have been undertaken in a manner that was ‘more reasonable’ or ‘more acceptable’. In general terms this is likely to mean that: • management actions do not need to be perfect or ideal to be considered reasonable. • a course of action may still be ‘reasonable action’ even if particular steps are not. • to be considered reasonable, the action must also be lawful and not be ‘irrational, absurd or ridiculous’. • any ‘unreasonableness’ must arise from the actual management action in question, rather than the applicant’s perception of it; and • consideration may be given as to whether the management action involved a significant departure from established policies or procedures, and if so, whether the departure was reasonable in the circumstances. [52] For the circumstances in s.789FD(2) of the FW Act to apply, the management action must also be carried out in a ‘reasonable manner’. Consistent with the approach above, what is ‘reasonable’ is a question of fact and the test is an objective one. [53] Whether the management action was taken in a reasonable manner may depend on the action, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the requirement for action, the way in which the action impacts upon the worker and the circumstances in which the action was implemented and any other relevant matters. [54] All of the requirements of s.789FD(1) must be read together. In terms of the issues in dispute in this case, this means that the Commission must consider whether an individual or group of individuals have repeatedly behaved unreasonably towards the applicant and whether that behaviour has created a risk to health and safety. A positive finding on each of these elements, and if appropriate, a finding that the circumstances contemplated in s.789FD(2) of the FW Act do not apply to the behaviour, must be made for the Commission to find that the applicant worker has been bullied at work”. “
I just watched the ABC NEWS video of Allegedly Impartial, Former CLP MLA, Fully Qualified MAD HARRY CHECKOUT CHICK Robyn Lambley going off at MLA Tanzil Rahman in her role as the impartial Speaker. It has to be seen to believed. I have never seen a Speaker act like that before, ever, regardless of brand of the Political Party!
Where was Robyn Lambleys Oscar Winning theatrics when: – DANBY was correctly announced that DANBYS dont go to jail!! – the clueless Katherine CLP MLA accepted gifts and bragged about it (flights)!! – Their was an Investigation into the Cheif Ministers Husbands Dodgy Pay Allegations? – When Greens MLA Kat Mcnamara asked about Chief Ministers Husbands dad, Denis Burke being a Darwin Consent Authority member (they decide on building decisions) and also being a Halikos Lobbyst at the same time. (ONYA KAT!) – When the Chief Minister called former Greens MLA Kat Mcnamara “Garbage”. Why? See previous item! -When the CLP picked a outspoken and controversial Administrator? -When the CLP picked Health CEO claimed Medical System Acacia was a success? -Claims the AFP investigating dysfunction in NT Police top brass -Claims of ‘Govt in the shadows’: CLP passes ‘Mano’s Law’ to block public access to ministerial emails
Resign Robyn Lambley your a joke, you would serve the public better , working in retail.
Becareful of Generation Y, the Delicate Tulips that they are.
This is a unbelievable media storm in a teacup!!
The privileges committee should be looking at the Labor crew, all hanging around town when they are required in their electorates, where the only thing stopping the fighting is the flooding.
I want to be clear that I do not support bullying in any workplace.
However, I find the NT Labor Opposition current outrage about workplace bullying rather curious.
The then NT Labor Government and now NT Opposition feel it is appropriate to be speaking so strongly and expressing outrage about workplace bullying but when they were the then NT Labor Government, they spent numerous taxpayer dollars protecting then CEO of an NT Public Service Department, Mr Andrew Kirkman in an NT Work Health Court matter.
The silence at the time was deafening by the then NT Labor Government.
This occurred both before and after an unprecedented 16 day court hearing that found Mr Andrew Kirkman had caused a serious mental health injury to a female staff member. The judge also found his conduct included swearing, table-thumping, and behaviour that was aggressive, dismissive, insensitive and inappropriate.
In the decision of the Northern Territory Work Heakth Court in [2024] NTWHC 2 Maria Rust v Northern Territory of Australia (8 July 2024), Judge John Neill found that the CEO Mr Andrew Kirkman of an NT Public Service Department told employee Ms Maria Rust that her career would be destroyed if she complained about him.
In the Northern Territory Work Health Court decision [2024] NTWHC 2 Maria Rust v Northern Territory of Australia (8 July 2024) Judge John Neill states at paragraph [61] –
“On the basis of Mr. Andrew Kirkman’s volume and tone of voice and interruptions of Mrs Maria Rust in the recording of the meeting, on the basis of the transcript of the recording, of the admissions made by Mr. Andrew Kirkman to the Investigator Ms Raelene Burke set out above, and of the admissions and concessions of Mr. Andrew Kirkman set out above in his evidence before me, I am satisfied and I find that in the course of the recorded part of the meeting on 30 July 2021 Andrew Kirkman, the CEO of the NT Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Logistics, behaved toward the Ms Maria Rust, an A06 clerk in his Department, in an aggressive, threatening, dismissive, insensitive and inappropriate manner.”
In the subsequent decision [2024] NTWHC 2 Maria Rust v Northern Territory of Australia (Costs) (31 July 2024) Judge John Neill also awarded 100 % costs against the Northern Territory Government in this case.
There was extensive media coverage of this matter at the time, yet the NT Labor Government at the time remained silent.
Where was the outrage then? Where were the demands for answers and accountability back then?
Indeed
Thank you for helping people like you do
Pot calling the kettle black…NT ALP blatant hypocrisy as the 2016-19 ALP CM Gunner, CoS Leonardi, Media CEO Rowston & DCM CEO Ryan who colluded with NT News Editor Matt Williams were predators & bullies who targeted prey. Let’s not forget 2020-24 COVID Bioweapon mandated intimidation & fear driven by their mainstream media cabal ABC, Mix 104.9, NT News, Channel 9. ALP need a mirror for reflection.
Workplace abuse exists in the Northern Territory and if our politicians can display best practice in dealing with abuse then once again that the Northern Territory Politicians are still very immature with dealing with abuse (which is illegal).
Workplace bullying is illegal in Australia under federal and state laws. The Fair Work Act 2009 defines and prohibits bullying—defined as repeated, unreasonable behavior creating a health risk—and allows workers to apply to the Fair Work Commission for stop-bullying orders. Employers also have a duty to ensure safety under WHS laws.
Albeit this Fair Work Commission decision of Deputy President Gerard Boyce [2021] FWC 2200 Stephen Hanson (AB2019/196) v Regional Express (REX) Airlines (22 April 2021) was overturned by the Full decision [2021] FWCFB 2755 on 21 May 2021 the summary from paragraphs [24] to [29] in Deputy President Gerard Boyce are a good summary of the legislation and pertinent case authorities in relation sections 789FD and 789FF of the Fair Work Act (Cth).
“[24] Firstly, the test imposed is an objective one, with the measure of “reasonability” being a question of fact. In other words, the impugned behaviour will be caught by s.789FD if a reasonable person (having regard to all the facts and circumstances) may consider it to be unreasonable.
[25] Secondly, the word “repeatedly” must be applied, meaning that a single incidence of unreasonable behaviour will fall outside the scope of the section. 11 Beyond a single incidence, however, there is no specific number of incidences required to meet the requirement for “repeated” (unreasonable) behaviour.12
[26] Thirdly, the impugned behaviour must also “create a risk to the health and safety”. In this regard, in Re SB, 13 Commissioner Hampton stated:
“[44] The unreasonable behaviour must also create a risk to health and safety. Therefore there must be a causal link between the behaviour and the risk to health and safety. Cases on causation in other contexts suggest that the behaviour does not have to be the only cause of the risk, provided that it was a substantial cause of the risk viewed in a common sense and practical way. This would seem to be equally applicable here.
[45] A risk to health and safety means the possibility of danger to health and safety and is not confined to actual danger to health and safety. The ordinary meaning of ‘risk’ is exposure to the chance of injury or loss. In the sense used in this provision, the risk must also be real and not simply conceptual”. 14
[27] Fourthly, the worker must have been bullied “at work”. 15
[28] Fifthly, in relation to s 789FF(1), as the Full Bench in Mekuria v Mecca Brands Pty Ltd said: 16
“[29] Apart from the requirement for an application to have been made under s.789FC, s.789FF(1) establishes two prerequisites: first, the Commission must be satisfied that the worker has been bullied at work by an individual or group of individuals and, second, the Commission must be satisfied that there is a risk that the worker will continue to be bullied at work by the individual or group. The use of the definite article in s 789FF(1)(b)(ii) in connection with the individual or group of individuals indicates that they must be the same as the individual or group of individuals considered for the purpose of s 789FF(1)(b)(i). That is, it is not sufficient to satisfy the second condition in s 789FF(1)(b)(ii) by demonstrating that there is a risk of being bullied at work by individuals other than those who have been found to have engaged in bullying pursuant to s 789FF(1)(b)(i).” 17
[29] Sixthly, even if a worker is able to establish the impugned behaviour satisfies the criteria in sub-s.789FD(1) of the Act, sub-s.789(2) of the Act operates to qualify the impugned behaviour if that behaviour is “reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner”. As to the operation of sub-s.789(2), again I rely on Commissioner Hampton’s considerations in Re SB:
“[47] Section 789FD(2) of the FW Act is not so much an “exclusion” but a qualification which reinforces that bullying conduct must of itself be unreasonable. It also emphasises the right of management to take reasonable management action in the workplace.
[48] The Explanatory Memorandum refers to management decision and decisions about how work is to be carried out. This suggests that the term may be required to be given a wide meaning under s.789FD(2) and that the Legislature intended everyday actions to effectively direct and control the way work is carried out to be covered by the exclusion.
[49] Determining whether management action is reasonable requires an objective assessment of the action in the context of the circumstances and knowledge of those involved at the time. Without limiting that assessment, the considerations might include:
• the circumstances that led to and created the need for the management action to be taken.
• the circumstances while the management action was being taken; and
• the consequences that flowed from the management action.
[50] The specific ‘attributes and circumstances’ of the situation including the emotional state and psychological health of the worker involved may also be relevant.
[51] The test is whether the management action was reasonable, not whether it could have been undertaken in a manner that was ‘more reasonable’ or ‘more acceptable’. In general terms this is likely to mean that:
• management actions do not need to be perfect or ideal to be considered reasonable.
• a course of action may still be ‘reasonable action’ even if particular steps are not.
• to be considered reasonable, the action must also be lawful and not be ‘irrational, absurd or ridiculous’.
• any ‘unreasonableness’ must arise from the actual management action in question, rather than the applicant’s perception of it; and
• consideration may be given as to whether the management action involved a significant departure from established policies or procedures, and if so, whether the departure was reasonable in the circumstances.
[52] For the circumstances in s.789FD(2) of the FW Act to apply, the management action must also be carried out in a ‘reasonable manner’. Consistent with the approach above, what is ‘reasonable’ is a question of fact and the test is an objective one.
[53] Whether the management action was taken in a reasonable manner may depend on the action, the facts and circumstances giving rise to the requirement for action, the way in which the action impacts upon the worker and the circumstances in which the action was implemented and any other relevant matters.
[54] All of the requirements of s.789FD(1) must be read together. In terms of the issues in dispute in this case, this means that the Commission must consider whether an individual or group of individuals have repeatedly behaved unreasonably towards the applicant and whether that behaviour has created a risk to health and safety. A positive finding on each of these elements, and if appropriate, a finding that the circumstances contemplated in s.789FD(2) of the FW Act do not apply to the behaviour, must be made for the Commission to find that the applicant worker has been bullied at work”. “
I just watched the ABC NEWS video of Allegedly Impartial, Former CLP MLA, Fully Qualified MAD HARRY CHECKOUT CHICK Robyn Lambley going off at MLA Tanzil Rahman in her role as the impartial Speaker.
It has to be seen to believed. I have never seen a Speaker act like that before, ever, regardless of brand of the Political Party!
Where was Robyn Lambleys Oscar Winning theatrics when:
– DANBY was correctly announced that DANBYS dont go to jail!!
– the clueless Katherine CLP MLA accepted gifts and bragged about it (flights)!!
– Their was an Investigation into the Cheif Ministers Husbands Dodgy Pay Allegations?
– When Greens MLA Kat Mcnamara asked about Chief Ministers Husbands dad, Denis Burke being a Darwin Consent Authority member (they decide on building decisions) and also being a Halikos Lobbyst at the same time. (ONYA KAT!)
– When the Chief Minister called former Greens MLA Kat Mcnamara “Garbage”. Why? See previous item!
-When the CLP picked a outspoken and controversial Administrator?
-When the CLP picked Health CEO claimed Medical System Acacia was a success?
-Claims the AFP investigating dysfunction in NT Police top brass
-Claims of ‘Govt in the shadows’: CLP passes ‘Mano’s Law’ to block public access to ministerial emails
Resign Robyn Lambley your a joke, you would serve the public better , working in retail.