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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (25 February) . . Page.. 378 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

I think that is a bit of gobbledegook. It means that she wants to widen the pressure she can put on employees. She continued:

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.

On the face of it, neither should it.

Mr Humphries: Indeed. So why not give us the power to deal with it?

MR BERRY: Mr Humphries says, "Why don't you give us the power to do it?". Because I think it would be unfair, in the circumstances, especially given the Government's actions in dealing with its appointees and other people who are employed under the Public Sector Management Act.

Take what happened to the director of mental health, for heaven's sake. If that was not a classic example of making a scapegoat of somebody, I have never seen one before. It shows that we have a government with an intemperate mood about its employees who differ with it. Let us take the issue of Jacqui Rees, where an unprecedented action was taken in the Assembly to correct something that was dead wrong. Whatever you think about Ms Rees, the principles that were adopted by the majority of this Assembly were correct. You cannot treat people like that. What the Government is asking us to do is to widen its powers so that it can find more reasons for disciplining its employees.

I read in the explanatory memorandum, Mr Speaker, which I have misplaced for the moment, a repeat of what Mrs Carnell said in relation to after work social functions. The case that she raises here is of one employee assaulting another. It is a poor example to raise if you want to widen the public obligations of the employees. It is a terrible example. If somebody assaults somebody you call the police and they come and deal with it. If it is not serious enough for them to come and deal with, it is not serious enough to worry about.

Mr Humphries: Supposing they do and they charge them. You can still employ them, can you?

MR BERRY: Take a civil action. You really ought not have the authority of management widened to fix up employees. Here is a hypothetical case which may occur. You have a senior manager at a function with a junior person, an ASO2 or ASO3, who have had a bit of a difference of opinion and the junior person romps up to the senior person and gives him a good mouthful about his behaviour. The situation arises where this may be construed to be improper conduct.

Mr Humphries: It is a bit of a longbow.

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