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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (25 February) . . Page.. 380 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

So, clearly, there has been some concern within the Government about this very issue. The same sorts of concerns, I think, have been raised by Mr Berry, and I have the same sorts of concerns. Firstly, "improper conduct" is not defined in this clause. Just exactly what is "improper conduct"? Further, when I look at proposed new subsection 9(2) in clause 5, it says this:

A public employee shall not -

... ... ...

(b) engage in improper conduct otherwise than as a public employee, being conduct that adversely affects the performance of his or her duties or brings the public sector, or any part of it, into disrepute.

To me, this seems to be cast too broadly. Take a public employee at a public meeting who presents the Government perspective and takes some action that may be appropriate in terms of the Government. People at this public meeting feel that it is entirely unfair - we come across these issues in planning matters all the time - and say, "That is the bloody Public Service. They never do anything". In a sense, that brings the Public Service into disrepute. So the casting of this section, I believe, could put somebody in those sorts of situations in an inappropriate position.

I understand from discussions with the Chief Minister that she is quite comfortable about relooking at the section and discussing with members the way it works. I would be happy to do that. I am supporting the Bill in principle because I think the legislation is fine. I just have these particular concerns about the way this particular piece of legislation may be used. Mr Speaker, at the same time, I can understand why it is that the Government put this up. I can understand concerns, particularly if you are talking about, for example, sexual harassment that occurs outside the workplace but at a work-related function. I know that Mr Berry put his perspective that there are laws that cover that. What I am saying is that I understand the sort of thinking behind why this was put up. However, my concern is genuine; this may be opening up too broad a power to ensure that public servants have fewer rights than ordinary people. I think we have to be very careful in dealing with this sort of issue. There is no doubt, from my interpretation of the Chief Minister's presentation speech, that these are issues that are not easily resolved. That is why it is that I am reluctant to support those two clauses of the Bill. The rest of the Bill is fine as far as I am concerned.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (12.21): I will not be very long. Mr Speaker, I think there are a few points that need to be made. I think anyone listening to Mr Berry speak in this debate would imagine that he is a person who does not believe in terminating the contracts of public servants, and that they deserve pretty well complete security of tenure. I think the impression that he is trying to create is that, because the present Government has tried to sack public servants, we therefore should not be entrusted with powers that might facilitate that happening in the future. The fact is, first of all, that this Bill, if passed, will continue for a long period of time. It would not be used just by this Government, if it were used at all by this Government. Secondly, Mr Speaker, the record

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