Page 1392 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 11 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Finally, Division 2 of Mrs Carnell's Bill does seem unnecessary. Division 2 deals with rights at common law and officers retaining their rights. I do not consider that that division is necessary, because officers of the Public Service do retain their common law rights. There is nothing to deny that to them. They have the right to undertake legal action as for a tort, and these rights do not need to be spelt out again in the legislation.
In summary, the Government has a range of areas in the Public Interest Disclosure Bill that we would want to amend. Given the reservations I have about some clauses of the Bill, if it is the will of the Assembly to proceed with the Bill before us I will require some time to get appropriate amendments drafted. However, on the more general argument, I consider that the Public Sector Management Bill is the appropriate vehicle to contain whistleblower provisions. I urge members to give consideration to the two Bills side by side, to give consideration to the points I have made today and, if it is their decision after that consideration that we proceed with the Public Interest Disclosure Bill, to allow me time to get the amendments I consider necessary to bring this Bill up to scratch.
MR KAINE (11.28): Madam Speaker, I believe that this Bill put forward by the Leader of the Opposition is a very significant Bill. It is not a trivial one. It is one we need to give very careful consideration to. It is very significant because of the changes that have taken place in our society in recent decades. Those changes are reflected, for example, in the way that government does its business and in the way that the administration is established and operates. We are in the middle of some of that change right now with the establishment of our own public service. Anybody who is a student of public administration and politics would be well aware of the enormous changes in Australia in recent decades in the approach to politics and to public administration. Part of that change, and I suppose part of a societal change, is a very significant change in the standards of professional conduct and ethics.
If we were to go back and look at the public service of 30 or 40 years ago, public servants had very secure tenure. There was an absolute commitment to lifetime employment in their profession. There were very high standards of performance required. Those standards of performance were complied with - not because there were laws or regulations or standards that they were obliged to comply with, but simply because it was the corporate ethic. It was part of the standards of the community of the day. Today, the requirement to comply with professional and ethical standards is becoming more and more embedded in published standards, regulations, documents that require public servants to perform in a certain way. Many of them are now under contract by way of employment conditions instead of the old way of becoming a public servant and simply being bound by the provisions of the Public Service Act of the day.
The final thing that has changed is that there are today many incentives to people in public life to take, if you like, the easy dollar. I am sure that Mr Moore will not mind me referring to a forum he and I attended yesterday in connection with drugs and the decriminalisation of drugs. Mr Moore made the point that anybody involved with drugs in this country today is confronted with the second largest industry in the world.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .