Page 4679 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 7 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
proposed legislation and to be asked to debate and decide upon appropriate amendments barely 12 hours later. That is what is occurring here. I realise that, if it is the will of the non-Government parties in this Assembly that that is what should occur, then they have the numbers to do that. But I ask them to think very carefully about what they are doing.
The report, which was presented only last night, raises some very important issues, as my colleague Mr Berry pointed out in his dissenting report to the committee's conclusions. I believe that the recommendations of the report, if adopted, would require a fundamental reassessment of the approach that was endorsed by this Assembly in establishing the ACT Government Service. Madam Speaker, that Bill was voted on and accepted by this Assembly. As members may recall - they may not, it appears - the Public Sector Management Act was premised on the concept that the ACT would be best served by a unified public sector with a common employment framework contained in a single piece of legislation. The Public Interest Disclosure Bill and the majority recommendations of the standing committee seek to vary those arrangements less than six months after their enactment. This is because the Bill, if enacted, would remove from the Public Sector Management Act 1994 the provisions pertaining to protection for public sector employees and incorporate them into separate legislation.
Madam Speaker, the Government's position on this is not necessarily oppositional. It may well be that the public interest and accountability would be better served by stand-alone legislation. It is just that we believe that this needs careful consideration. We received the committee's report last night. We need to be confident that we all understand the ramifications before taking what I consider to be a serious step. After all, we are concerned not just about government but also about governance. The latter often requires a sustained and deliberative effort. As a government, Madam Speaker, we most certainly are concerned with governance. We have made it an obligation for the ACT public sector employees to report fraud, corruption and maladministration. If members care to refer to Part IX of the Public Sector Management Act, they will discover for themselves that they have actually made the failure to report fraud, corruption and maladministration a disciplinary offence. We voted on that. We have adopted that. It is in the Act. Nevertheless, Madam Speaker, I certainly recognise that, in certain circumstances, fulfilling that obligation may expose individual officers to risk of reprisal. That is why we have included special protective measures, again, in the Public Sector Management Act. That is simply part of our responsibility as an employer.
These two provisions and the statement of the values and principles that this Assembly enacted in the Public Sector Management Act, I believe, lay the groundwork for the cultural change that Mr Kaine called for last night. I thought that his point was very well made, if somewhat belated. But there are two assumptions that are inherent in Mrs Carnell's Bill. The first is that we have established a public service that is rife with corruption. I do not accept that. The second assumption is that we do not have the established mechanisms to deal appropriately with that corruption. I regard both of those underlying assumptions as an insult to this Assembly and certainly to the public service that we created not six months ago. So, Madam Speaker, in the interests of good governance, it is our belief that the debate on this whole matter ought at least to be held over to allow proper consideration of the Assembly committee's report and proper
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .