Page 1350 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 12 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS FOLLETT: Madam Speaker, before I get to the last part of Mr De Domenico's question I would recommend to him that if he wants to remain as the Opposition spokesman on public service matters he really ought to find out a little bit about it. If he does not do so in a public service town like this he runs the risk of looking like a bit of a twit, or looking as though he is on a witch-hunt, and I certainly would not want that to be the case.
I should make it clear, Madam Speaker, that the Investigations Unit is part of the Office of Public Sector Management within my own department and it is responsible to and reports to the head of my department. You have to understand that the head of the department, the secretary of that department, does have management responsibility in these matters. The staff of the Investigations Unit operate, as do other staff of the public service, under the Public Service Act. They do not operate outside of that Act; they are not beyond that Act; and, of course, that Act is a tried and tested piece of legislation. In the day-to-day operations of this unit, and indeed all of the other units within my department, I do not have either a direct role or an indirect role. We have managers to perform those day-to-day management roles.
Madam Speaker, Mr De Domenico has asked why that report was not referred to the police. In answering his question I would like to say that I am aware of the general tenor of that report. Of course, the head of my department has kept me aware of that. I am aware of the general tenor of the recommendations in that report. I am aware also that the head of my department has exercised his judgment on how to proceed with that Investigations Unit report. He has exercised his judgment, exercised his management responsibilities, under the Public Service Act.
Madam Speaker, I support that state of affairs. I do not support politicians interfering in the day-to-day management of those sorts of matters, any more than I would support, for instance, my being asked to sign people's pay cheques, although I am, of course, responsible for appropriating the money which provides those pay cheques. I do not support my having to sign people's leave forms or their sick leave applications, although I am, of course, responsible for ensuring that their conditions of service are appropriate and are generally abided by. I do not believe, Madam Speaker, that I or any politician should interfere in an inquiry, a disciplinary matter, which is rightly handled in the general management sphere.
Madam Speaker, I would like to make it clear that the inquiry that is currently being carried out - I refer Mr De Domenico to, from memory, section 61 of the Public Service Act - is aimed at looking at allegations against a specific officer or officers over specific allegations of inappropriate or fraudulent behaviour. The report that is produced as a result of the inquiry will contain very sensitive material. It will contain very confidential material that relates to individuals and individual circumstances. I said yesterday that I would not be making that report public, and I repeat it today.
It is also the case that that report may well lead to further action. For example, there is nothing to prevent such a report subsequently being conveyed to the Federal Police for further action. There is nothing to prevent it entering the courts, for example. There is nothing to prevent it being the subject, for example, of a grievance matter, or a matter before the Merit and Protection Review Agency.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .