Page 2368 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 22 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Ms Follett: No.
MR HUMPHRIES: I think that is what it does, because people who fall into that group may have rules made in respect of them which are potentially prejudicial to other people within the class of people who might be employed or promoted within the ACT public service. That is the way I have read it. If the Chief Minister has a different view of it, she can put it to us. It seems to me that, if we are going to designate individuals for whom particular procedures should be put in place, then we should indicate that decision at the level of the Assembly, not at the level of the commissioner of the public service. It is the Assembly that makes decisions about the scope of the Discrimination Act, not anybody at a lesser level.
MS SZUTY (4.23): I have been listening very attentively to what Mr Humphries has had to say about his amendment. I must admit that it was my understanding that the public sector management standards would be instruments disallowable by this Assembly, but perhaps the Chief Minister could clarify the matter for us today.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (4.23): The Government opposes Mr Humphries's amendment, and we do so because I think Mr Humphries is under an misapprehension. The purpose of paragraph (e) is simply to allow another class of persons, another designated group, to be added under the purview of access and equity and equal employment opportunity. At the moment there is no such group of people apparent, but it is quite conceivable that over time another group may emerge. I am aware of some debate that is going on, for instance, about people whose appearance is different. Just on the grounds of appearance there may in time be another designated group.
The provisions that I have put into the Bill in fact mirror the existing Commonwealth provisions under the Public Service Act. I believe that it is appropriate that we delegate this role to the commissioner. After all, it is the commissioner who will be responsible for the overall personnel management of the ACT Government Service. The commissioner, I submit, may be best placed - looking at the employees of the Government Service - to make a judgment about whether there is another target group who would benefit from the provisions under the access and equity and equal employment opportunity programs. It is not a matter of exempting people but rather of adopting a capacity to add other groups. As I say, there are no other groups that I am aware of at the moment, but there could well be.
If you look at the original derivation of the existing EEO target groups, you will find that those groups were arrived at by pretty much an internal public service management process. I, for one, believe that it is appropriate to allow some capacity for the groups to be expanded if it is ever needed. I think that we ought to have confidence in the commissioner to make those kinds of judgments. It is not a matter which will be secret at the time, surely. It is a matter which will be in the standards. I think Mr Humphries is correct in saying that the standards are not a disallowable instrument; but if needs be,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .