Page 153 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 17 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES: I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his answer, but I further ask: First of all, why was it that officers at the centre were not tested at the same time as detainees were? Were the tests effectively carried out or conducted through the agency of the officers? For example, were the officers responsible for taking urine samples from the detainees to the hospital for testing? In what circumstances does the Minister consider it appropriate that the public of the Territory be advised that incidents of this kind have occurred and that an inquiry is being conducted into such allegations, or does he consider it appropriate that matters of this seriousness remain entirely internal and not come to public light unless leaked or revealed to the public?
MR CONNOLLY: Madam Speaker, Mr Humphries refers to "matters of this seriousness". It must be borne in mind that the allegations were extraordinarily serious. An allegation that cannabis was supplied to a detainee by a remand centre officer would be a matter of the utmost seriousness. Urinalysis of remandees established that that did not occur. The outcome of the investigation is that officers appear to have had a few cans of beer at their place of work on Christmas Day. That is contrary to public service directions. It is against the regulations. Disciplinary action has been taken in relation to that, but one would have to say that, in the scheme of things, in Australia on Christmas Day for somebody to consume a can of beer at work is probably not the most serious breach of public order and safety that one could imagine. However, it should not happen. Had any grog or cannabis been passed to prisoners, that would obviously be a very different matter, because it would give rise to potential disciplinary problems. That matter has been dealt with.
When I was first made aware of it and told that the matter was being pursued through a public service disciplinary procedure I let it go at that. When there is a disciplinary inquiry it is appropriate that Ministers not intervene. When Mr Humphries raised the matter with me I assured him that I would promptly give him a full report, and I did so. Had he not raised the question, a report would have come to me in due course saying that an investigation had confirmed that a couple of officers had imbibed a can of beer and that an officer had taken a government vehicle to visit home. They are fairly low-level matters, and I probably would not have felt it necessary to make a major statement to the Assembly about them. Those sorts of low-level disciplinary matters arise on a daily or weekly basis and are dealt with by workplace managers under the Public Service Act without a need to make them a major public issue.
Medicare Agreement
MR LAMONT: My question is directed to the Deputy Chief Minister in his capacity as Minister for Health. The ACT Government recently signed the new Medicare agreement. What were the advantages to the ACT in signing the agreement early?
MR BERRY: I thank the member for the question, Madam Speaker. It is most important that all matters of concern to Canberra residents be fully aired in the course of this Federal election and that their effects on the ACT be made known. The Medicare agreement which was signed by me was a significant advance on what had occurred in the past. I have to report to the Assembly that Mrs Carnell, in her usual tirade of complaints, attempted to cause fear and concern amongst
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .