House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Grievance Debate Public Sector Bill PUBLIC SECTOR BILL Mr GRIFFITHS House of Assembly Goyder Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (15:43): I wish to take a few moments to reflect upon an article that appears on page 15 of the Adelaide Advertiser published today which talks about some issues relating to the public sector and put some comments on the record on behalf of the opposition. The article says that the opposition has formed a view that prevents government department CEs hiring and firing. I think it is important for all of us to understand that the debate that has occurred on this bill in this chamber, and the other house, has been quite robust. No doubt a series of amendments was moved, but we have respected the fact that the previous public sector act has been in place since the early 1990s and there was a need, in some cases, for a review to take place, and this is an opportunity to do so. I think it is fair to say that, while we have moved amendments, in the majority of cases the legislation proposed has been supported. However, in consultation with the PSA and other persons within South Australia, there are key areas in which we have a divergence of opinion with the government and wish to take a different view. Our view very much is based on the fact that CEs have the ability to hire, and all that sort of thing, and nobody debates that point. However, in relation to the ability to fire, in the consultation we undertook, concerns were expressed about a CE or a senior person within a department terminating the position of a public sector employee without there being some form of checking in place to ensure the appropriateness of this decision and that there could be cases of people being dismissed inappropriately. That is why, as part of our consideration, we have been quite diligent in proposing in this chamber and, indeed, in the other place, that there needs to be some form of checking in place. We recognise that, when a public servant behaves inappropriately, there is a need for some form of action to occur—and no-one would debate that. There is a need for efficiency to ensure that the Public Service acts in the best possible way and, indeed, as part of its culture within a department, that the Public Services is encouraged to provide advice free of persecution in any way and to do so with the interests of the South Australian community at heart. There is a concern that, in some cases, if a personality clash exists or if a direction is given, a public servant could be deemed to have acted incorrectly and a CE could determine that that person should be fired. We think that by inserting the requirement for the Commissioner for Public Employment to be involved in the process, then the CE of the department has to submit a report to the commissioner. The commissioner then considers the issues contained in the report and the circumstances around which the CE feels that a termination of employment should take place and decides whether or not that is appropriate. It does not remove the ability for a CE to fire a person: it only ensures that a checking mechanism is in place. I think those of us in this chamber who wish to ensure that fairness and equity exist would certainly support this provision being included. There has been much debate about this. I note that, in an article in The Advertiser, the government has written to 300 business leaders in the state about what it sees as our role in preventing necessary legislation from being enacted. It is interesting, though, that when debate has occurred on this in the upper house, both the opposition and the minor parties have all come out very strongly in support of the amendments that have been flagged. These people have ensured that they have had healthy debate with the PSA. The PSA has put a position to the opposition and the minor parties. We have the opportunity to address this concern by having this checking mechanism inserted to ensure that a rash decision cannot be made, but the opportunity still does exist for people to be terminated when circumstances deem it necessary I find it interesting that the minister is now saying that the opposition needs to reverse its position on this. I can confirm that we have discussed this. We do hold the interests of the public sector very strongly at heart. We recognise that the 83,000 people who work for the public sector do wonderful work for the community of South Australia and we do not feel that the insertion of this requirement prevents chief executives from managing their departments properly.