House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Public Service Employees Public Service Employees Mr MARSHALL House of Assembly Dunstan Leader of the Opposition Public Service Employees Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:35): A supplementary: are those three employees still at work and, if they are not at work, are they still being paid while this investigation is underway? The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly Enfield Deputy Premier Attorney-General Minister for Justice Reform Minister for Planning Minister for Industrial Relations Minister for Child Protection Reform Minister for the Public Sector Minister for Consumer and Business Services Minister for the City of Adelaide Public Service Employees The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (14:35): My understanding is they are not presently at work. However, the idea of actually suspending a public servant without pay is like in the world of private sector employment. It is not without complexity because— Ms Chapman interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The deputy leader has repeatedly interjected after going through all her warnings. The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly The Hon. J.R. RAU: If I remember correctly, there was a case some time ago called Automatic Fire Sprinklers v Watson, which set up the basic proposition that it is very important that a person who is ready, willing and able to present themselves for work is paid for doing that work. For reasons of the severity of the complaints that were made by the royal commissioner, and for reasons associated with the inappropriate nature of having somebody who was under that sort of cloud turning up to work and possibly accessing records, clearly you cannot have that person at work. But to terminate their payments before there has been an investigation amounts to a summary dismissal and is very problematic. However, I am confident that there will be an opportunity for those people to have their say in terms of the investigation and that it will be moved along as quickly as possible. Suspending without pay, my understanding is that is not the case here, and every time I have seen someone attempt to do that it has been problematic.