Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 11 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 2855 ..

MS FOLLETT (continuing):

I think that by attempting to make incompatibility a ground for dismissal the Government is saying to its employees, "We will employ you if we like you". The fact is, Mr Speaker, that compatibility is also a test between employees. So where there is a disagreement - it may be a professional disagreement; it may in fact be an entirely guiltless matter - on the Government's grounds of incompatibility that could spell the end of somebody's career.

I do not believe that that is good enough. It certainly runs contrary to any concept of a career public service and any concept of an apolitical public service. Where compatibility is not defined at all it leads to everybody having to make their own decision about what compatibility means. Clearly, to some people it will mean political compatibility. At another time it may well be religious compatibility, or even a matter of friendship. Mr Speaker, I know that members will want to pooh pooh that idea, but if they have a long history in Canberra and in the ACT and a long history of dealing with the Commonwealth Public Service, for instance, they will know that for many years, and this was many years ago, religion was indeed an issue. It was an issue which could determine not only which department you were in but how far and where you were promoted to. That is no longer the case, but reintroducing this ground of compatibility opens the way for further such examples.

The thing that concerns me most about incompatibility, Mr Speaker, is the question of political incompatibility. Where a government or a senior executive makes a judgment about another person's politics, or about their particular allegiances, and therefore seeks to have some effect on their employment on those grounds, they will simply say, "They were not compatible", or, "This person's views are not compatible with those of the Government". I think that is cause for very great concern.

On a more practical level, I also believe that being able to be dismissed on the grounds of incompatibility is surely going to constrain the most conscientious of public servants in the advice that they give to governments. As I said before, who is going to be able to tell the can-do Government that they cannot do something when they risk being found incompatible? Mr Speaker, it is absolutely essential that public servants are able to give frank and fearless advice, and that advice, as we all know, is not always popular and is not always compatible with the government of the day; but, it is, I believe, a fundamental in a good public service that that capacity should continue to exist.

Mr Speaker, I do commend my amendment to the Assembly because it attempts to get rid of what I believe is a totally inappropriate clause in the Government's legislation, a clause that not only will lead to a lesser public service - lesser in terms of their own impartiality, lesser in terms of the frankness and fearlessness of their advice - but also will lead to a possible victimisation of certain employees, senior employees admittedly, because of the views that they hold or some other factor. There is nothing in the Government's legislation that is beyond the pale in terms of compatibility, because it is simply not defined. It could be anything. That is clearly a gross disadvantage to the employees concerned; but I would also say it is a gross disadvantage to the government of the day and to the Canberra community, for they are the ones who at the end of the day will have to wear whatever it is that this Government means by compatibility. Mr Speaker, I do not believe that is good enough, and I commend the amendment to all members who are prepared to keep a public service that we can be proud of.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .