Page 4768 - Week 16 - Monday, 25 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
established and that "public official" in the proposed legislation include "members of the ACT Legislative Assembly, all employees of the ACT Government Service, its agencies, authorities and boards and all public office-holders regardless of whether such persons receive salary, wages or expenses".
The Alliance left behind a fully prepared Bill which was on the draft orders of the day for 30 May 1991. Unfortunately, I was dismissed as Attorney a day earlier, so those recommendations have not been implemented - and they should have been. Admittedly, the Labor Party issued its legislative program some weeks later and included the Bill with its list. It is quite clear now that the Labor Party has no intention of introducing the Public Corruption Bill.
We remain concerned about certain matters, including John Haslem's claims in a pre-election campaign statement in 1989 about a Canberra Inc. In our view, there are continuing concerns, and with the threatened rise of Canberra Inc. again it is time to support our police and other investigative agencies in their work. Accordingly, the Crimes (Amendment) Bill (No. 6) 1991 deals with the needs identified by the Gibbs Committee in its July 1990 interim report, Review of Commonwealth Criminal Law. Chapter 22 of that report dealt with official misconduct and, among other matters, abuses of power, excessive official authority and wilful neglect of duty.
We have spoken on several occasions in this Assembly about whether a conniving failure to take into account, for example, the cost to the community of infrastructure support of a development where proper inquiry should have been undertaken may well amount to corruption. We firmly believe that there should be an offence on the statute books for this type of conduct. It is now time for cupidity in government decision making, which leaves the community burdened with unrecoverable costs, to be marked by criminal sanction.
Likewise, nepotism in the appointment, on an acting or permanent basis, to a position paid by the taxpayer must be dealt with. We are concerned with any situation where a person who may not be regarded as a competent or efficient administrator periodically occupies a post of senior standing, depending upon whether a particular government is in power or not. As revealed in Queensland, ministerial nepotism is occasionally achieved by "wink wink, nod nod" subservience by other officials, who ostensibly make a public service decision to appoint a person close to a politician. In a society where there is increasing competition for jobs and an emphasis on merit, there is no place for the accommodation, at taxpayers' expense, of persons with an ill-defined superfluous role in the administration. Nepotism must have no place in the public service of this Territory.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .