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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (25 February) . . Page.. 381 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

ought to show that Mr Berry and his then Government also have been responsible for sacking public servants. Bear in mind, Mr Berry, that one of the very first acts of the Labor Government in the ACT upon self-government was to sack a senior public servant, Mr Keith Lyon.

Mr Berry: No, he was not sacked.

MR HUMPHRIES: He was sacked. We have had this out before, Mr Berry.

Mr Berry: He was not sacked and he was not sacked by the Government. So do not lie.

MR SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Berry: He was transferred.

MR HUMPHRIES: He was transferred in certain circumstances. The same thing happened later, Mr Berry, under a Liberal government and you said it was a sacking. You claimed, for example, that Mr Bissett was sacked. Mr Speaker, I just put on the record that it is not just Liberal governments who occasionally believe that it is appropriate to remove public servants. The Labor Party also has demonstrated that it is quite capable of sacking public servants.

Mr Speaker, Mr Berry cited some examples of where this might be abused. Let me give members of this chamber an example - I just thought this up - of when you might want to sack a public servant. Let us suppose that a doctor at the hospital decides he is going to use radiography equipment to take X-rays of his dog. I just made that up. It probably would never happen, Mr Speaker, but just suppose that a doctor did that.

Mr Berry: You would do nothing about it.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Berry says that we would do nothing about it. The Government, in a particular case to which I am referring, of course, did want to do something about it but could not do something about it because a provision like this did not appear in the legislation. The legislation says that a public employee may not engage in improper conduct, or words to that effect, as a public employee. That sort of provision exists in the legislation already, but this particular doctor in this particular case argued that he was not performing his X-raying of his dog as a public employee. He was doing it as a sideline, other than as a public employee, or in his own time, if you like. That is what he argued and that is what made it impossible to deal with that particular public employee.

Mr Berry: That is a scurrilous argument.

MR HUMPHRIES: It is a very good argument, Mr Berry. In fact, it is - - -

Mr Berry: It is a scurrilous argument. It holds no weight at all, and it does not do the first law officer any justice to argue that sort of thing.

MR SPEAKER: Order!

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