Page 2784 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 14 August 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The only significant differences between the committee's recommendations and the Government's responses are firstly, that the committee should have the power to require the production of documents in appropriate circumstances; and, secondly, that persons who are the subject of a complaint or allegation should not be required to be advised when information is passed by the body to investigating agencies. This is to avoid the potential for destruction of evidence and the general compromising of an investigation. The legislation to be drafted will provide protection for employees who might otherwise be prejudiced against by their employers because of the giving of information. The legislation will also provide confidentiality for both informants and persons about whom information is received.
Mr Acting Speaker, the Government is very pleased to be able to implement the Public Accounts Committee's main recommendations, and believes that this new body will greatly assist in guarding against official corruption in the ACT and in promoting public confidence in the vast majority of honest, dedicated members of the ACT public service.
We believe the proposed body will be effective. It will be a body that will not cost a great deal of money to maintain. It will be at arm's length from the Government and will very adequately take account of the problems of possible corruption in the public service and amongst public officials in the Australian Capital Territory.
MRS GRASSBY (4.31): I rise to make a few brief comments on the Government's response to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts report on the Independent Advisory Committee Against Corruption. This is a very important issue. We on this side of the house will consider the Government's response in detail and provide a detailed response. However, it is unfortunate that the Government did not give this issue the priority it really deserves.
The most noticeable thing about the response is the amount of time it has taken the Government to prepare it. Our current Attorney-General has made his name on conspiracy theories, so much so that a well known writer at the Canberra Times has taken to referring to Mr Collaery's "conspiracy-enriched existence". In opposition Mr Collaery demanded the establishment of a commission against corruption. The report of the Public Accounts Committee which we are considering today was the result of his demands. This report was tabled last December - eight months ago. What has the Attorney-General been doing since then? The answer is obvious, nothing; unless you count as action this dismantling of the ACT health and education systems, his inability to reach agreement with the Commonwealth Government over policy and his half-baked ideas for a Canberra court. Where is all the legislation he promised? Why has it taken the Government over eight months to respond to the committee's report? I will tell
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .