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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 11 Hansard (26 September) . . Page.. 3620 ..

1 of 2

Mister Speaker, I am pleased to present legislation amending the Public Sector Management Act 1994.

The Public Sector Management (Amendment) Bill (No. 2) of 1996 makes a number of amendments to the Act correcting errors and omissions of a technical nature which have come to light since the Act came into operation on 1 July 1994. It will also enable us to simplify the process of making amendments to the Public Sector Management Standards where these changes are of a technical nature.

Clause 4 of the Bill changes the definition of "criminal offence" in the Act to expand it to include offences which are committed in another State or Territory which are also offences in the Australian Capital Territory.

Clause 5 of the Bill broadens the disciplinary provisions of the Act. It addresses problems encountered with the operation of section 9 of the Act which sets out the `code of ethics' of public employees. Presently there is a concern that this formulation may interfere with successful disciplinary action where a public employee can argue that any improper conduct was not in connection with the performance of their duty.

A conscious decision was made in enacting the Public Sector Management Act 1994 to narrow the disciplinary provisions compared to the operation of section 56 of the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1922. That Act provides for disciplinary action in circumstances where an officer engages in improper conduct otherwise than as an officer, being conduct that affects adversely the performance of their duty or brings the Service into disrepute.

The rationale at the time was that the Government as an employer was not interested in the private lives of its employees and disciplinary action should properly be confined to things done in the performance of an employee's duty. As a result, the Public Sector Management Act 1994 deliberately did not carry over the previous disciplinary offence of "improper conduct otherwise than as an officer" in the Public Service Act 1922.

However, a number of cases have arisen that have highlighted the difficulty of drawing a clear line between work-related matters and the private lives of public employees.

For example, one employee assaulting another at an after work social function on official premises cannot currently be the subject of disciplinary action, because the action did not take place in performance of the employee's duty.

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