there is often no easy method of calculating any payout because its risk based and that has a subjective element. I think it’s not hard to deduce the basis for it though given the general level of unseemly behaviour in parliament and Parliament House. If you weee the employer would you want exposure on that and unravel far far more. I think people are trying to think of it simply on the basis of Brittany’s experiences. It wouldn’t have been so simple
I think it’s telling that parliament passed legislation last year designed to improve the way employees might experience a safe and healthy workplace
so possibly there were perceived weakness which might also have been exposed. The nature of the employer is also complicated and I’d suggest also that there is a delicate act between managing the interests of the employer - which may be an individual minister within the terms of the legislation and the interests of the institution. The interests of the government is only relevant to the extent that they might consider individual ministers.
