STATE LIBRARY

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (14:46): I seek leave to make an explanation before asking the Leader of the Government, representing the Minister for the Arts, a question about government waste.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I want to raise the issue of a public servant who said in a workplace 'bullshit' and then was suspended on full pay and sent home and, almost 2½ years later, is still waiting for a disciplinary inquiry to resolve the situation. I might say, Mr President, in your former occupation, I suspect you might have heard language more colourful than that particular word. As we are well aware, even in this place—in this chamber, in these corridors and in the bar—language much more colourful has been complained about against members of the government and, I am sure, occasionally members of the opposition as well.

The details of this dispute go back to December 2005, when a worker in the State Library was undertaking some work on a computer. Her supervisor was not there. She asked a fellow worker what she should do, and she did that. The next day, the supervisor came back and criticised the worker for the work that had been undertaken. The worker, who has been disciplined or suspended, said, 'Well, that was what Peter told me to do.' The supervisor said, 'Oh, no, Peter wouldn't have shown you to do that.' The worker then said, 'Well, Peter did show me to do that.' The supervisor said, 'Oh, no, Peter wouldn't have shown you to do that,' to which the worker then said, 'Bullshit', left the work site distressed and went to the ladies toilet. We are talking about two women employees in the State Library. The worker then went back to the work site and asked for a meeting to try to resolve the issue. That request was refused and the worker then said words along the lines of, 'Oh, don't do anything difficult; you might ruin your gorgeous complexion.'

As a result of that, the worker in the State Library was suspended on full pay from December 2005. She was sent home pending a Public Service disciplinary inquiry for breaching the Public Service code of conduct on some charge along the lines of not having respect or courtesy for a co-worker. I am advised that no mediation, conciliation or any other similar sensible course of action to resolve the dispute has been attempted since December 2005. I am advised that now, almost 2½ years later, the issue is still unresolved. The worker is still home on full pay, and a disciplinary inquiry is scheduled for next week.

Advice from a lawyer and an experienced industrial advocate acting on the worker's behalf who has raised the issue with me indicates that it is their view and advice to the worker that, even if found guilty, the inquiry could really only justify a reprimand of the worker. In conclusion, before asking my questions, I point out that I agree with the views that have been put to me about this issue; that this is one of the worst cases of public sector mismanagement and incompetence—

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —no, I said I am agreeing with the view of someone else—that I have ever seen. Not only is it a massive waste of taxpayers' money but also it has caused great distress to the worker involved. My questions to the appropriate minister are:

1. Does the Premier accept that there is something wrong with his public sector work processes when a worker is sent home on full pay and suspended for almost 2½ years awaiting a disciplinary inquiry for saying 'bullshit' in the workplace?

2. Are all public servants now on notice that, if they say 'bullshit' in the workplace, they will similarly face a disciplinary inquiry and action under the Rann government?

3. What action will Mr Rann (or Mr Hill, if he is the appropriate minister) or the Commissioner for Public Employment take (because there is obviously a role for the Commissioner to play) to resolve this issue urgently?

4. Importantly, what action and changes will the government implement to try to ensure that such an appalling situation as this will never occur again?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (14:51): I have been around this parliament long enough to know that one should never accept versions of stories that come from the opposition without having them thoroughly checked, because we have found on so many occasions that those very colourful versions we hear raised in question time often turn out to contain large errors of omission. Obviously, it will be necessary to check them.

Towards the end of the honourable member's question, he indicated that this person he referred to was facing a disciplinary inquiry next week. How irresponsible is it for the member opposite to ask a question that he knows must totally prejudice the situation? Obviously, it was designed to get this story into the media. How is that person, or anybody involved in this case (if in fact it has happened), supposed to be helped by having it in the media?

It is totally irresponsible for the Hon. Rob Lucas to raise this matter. In fact, I suggest that it is probably against standing orders. Of course, he did not indicate that a hearing would take place until the end of his lengthy explanation. I think that it is totally irresponsible that this should happen. I know, from my experience in this place, that I have been here too long to accept at face value the explanations provided by members opposite. I will refer the question on. However, I caution anyone against believing, on face value, the Hon. Rob Lucas's version of stories such as this.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!