Page 2375 - Week 07 - Thursday, 4 August 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The human rights commissioner, Helen Watchirs, is quoted in the Canberra Times on 25 July as saying that the laws go further than those applying to federal bureaucrats and possibly conflict with the Human Rights Act, saying:
… it probably crosses over to the incompatible.
The Assembly’s scrutiny of bills committee was also particularly critical of these clauses. The committee seriously questioned whether these clauses were unconstitutional and infringed the implied freedom of political discussion. The ACT Law Society has serious reservations about the bill and recommended that the government delay the introduction of amendments to the act until adequate consideration and consultation on the implications of the provisions had been undertaken.
Dr Watchirs also called for the addition of a public interest defence to better protect workers. She expressed disappointment that the ACT government did not consult with her office over the bill.
The government’s response to the public and professional backlash to the bill has been to cobble together some rushed amendments to try to soften the impact on part of the bill. The first draft of the bill said that clause 9 requires a public servant not to cause damage to the reputation of the ACT public service. That is the so-called gagging social media clause. The government now proposes an amendment to this section by substituting words to the effect of acting contrary to values.
Clause 9(4) of the first draft of the bill in effect required a public servant to report another public servant for misconduct. That is the so-called dob in clause. The government now proposes an amendment to this section by substituting words to the effect of acting corruptly or fraudulently. I understand it also requires that that must occur. That obviously becomes an issue when we have a situation, as we are aware of perhaps, where internally within the organisation a member of the public service has lost faith with that organisation and with the management structures and it is better for that individual to make complaints through the public interest disclosure process rather than to people who are part of the very system that they have a concern with.
I am concerned that there are so many concerns with the bill. There was a lack of consultation; this seems to have been a cobbled together process; there are rushed amendments; and this is being done on the eve of the election.
We have significant respect for our public service. I think that the way this whole process has played out—in terms of the time frames, in terms of the various iterations of the bill, in terms of the failure to consult and in terms of the cobbled together amendments—is indicative of the lack of respect that this government has shown its public servants in many ways.
It was in 2011 that Dr Hawke wanted the removal of inconsistent practices across the service and confusion about the application of law. This now has been going on for five years. I am just not confident that this is the right legislation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video