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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (25 February) . . Page.. 383 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: I know you are upset about Jacqui Rees, Mr Berry, and you can whip us and beat us and so on all you want about these things, but letting your pique govern the way in which you deal with legislation like this is a very foolish and short-sighted way of dealing with a problem of this kind. You yourselves have said that we should be dealing with these sorts of problems in a more decisive way and now, because you all have your knickers in a knot about Jacqui Rees, you are saying, "No, you cannot have the power to deal with public servants who engage in improper conduct". Mr Speaker, obviously it depends on when we bring this forward as to what sort of reaction we are going to get, but there is a real problem here. There are occasions when public servants behave in a strictly private capacity but ought to have their employment terminated. Is Mr Berry saying or is Mr Moore saying that such circumstances can never arise or have never arisen? If they believe they can never arise or have never arisen, how do they characterise the behaviour of a particular doctor at the then Woden Valley Hospital? How do they characterise that behaviour? Obviously, they do not attempt to do it on this occasion, although they were very strident in their criticism on a previous occasion.

Mr Speaker, I have to say that I think the Government has been left in a very difficult position here. It is being asked to act against this sort of behaviour by public servants but being denied the capacity to deal with it by an amendment generated by a particular incident about which the Assembly was extremely critical of the Government. I would appreciate some direction from the Assembly about how we deal with this problem.

MS TUCKER (12.29): I have listened to this debate with interest, but I will be supporting an adjournment of it because I have some concerns as well. I heard what Mr Humphries just said. I think you were saying that it was the example of the dog case that caused you to do this.

Mr Humphries: Yes.

MS TUCKER: I am interested in listening to more discussions around that; but, as it looks now, the Bill is extremely broad. I also heard what you said about "improper conduct" being a term that is used in other legislation. I suppose it has been brought to our attention particularly in this Bill because there is concern about the independence of the Public Service and the radical changes that have occurred in the Public Service. There is some concern that it might be going a little bit too far. As you said in your tabling speech, Mrs Carnell, people's private lives are their own business. There are concerns about how this could be misused, although I am not suggesting that Mr Humphries's or Mrs Carnell's Government would misuse it. But, obviously, there is potential for it.

I noticed in the presentation speech that you say there are cases where management action is appropriate and justified even if it is not as serious as a police matter, but it is too serious to ignore in a workplace context. In those circumstances the employer may be subject to civil liability, and so on. I suppose my own reaction to that is that I assume that the persons who did use the X-ray machinery inappropriately, on their dog, have been dealt with in many ways. They were publicly shamed, if you like, in one way, and I imagine that no other doctor is likely to repeat that.

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