HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-07-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATE LIBRARY

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (16:52): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the minister representing the Premier a question about Public Service management.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In April this year, I raised the question of a dispute that commenced in December 2005 between two workers at the State Library, which resulted in one worker being suspended on full pay for almost 2½ years for saying 'bullshit' and also saying words along the lines of, 'Don't do anything difficult; you might ruin your gorgeous complexion', to a superior officer. I raised that question in April, and I am still awaiting a reply.

There is another aspect of this dispute that I want to raise now, and that relates to an order that was given to this female employee back in December 2005, when she was told that she would be subjected to a disciplinary inquiry. She was advised by her superior in the State Library that she was not to use the library as a patron or be anywhere within the building.

I am advised that several months later, in June 2006, this employee visited the State Library. A complaint from an officer was raised with her and a letter was sent from Mr Greg Mackie, the Director of Arts SA, indicating that she was not allowed on the State Library site. This female employee wrote back to Mr Mackie asking for the reasons, and she has indicated that she did not receive a reply.

Some months later, in about August 2006, this employee again visited the State Library to use the public library facilities to read newspapers, and so on. As a result, she was approached by the Director of the library, Mr Smith, who ordered her to leave with a security guard in tow. My constituent asked under what law or rule she was being removed from the public library premises. The Director continued to ask her to leave. After further orders were given, two police officers were brought in; they handcuffed the constituent, arrested her and put her in the City Watch House.

I refer the minister to the Libraries Act and Library Regulations 1998, which cover the position in relation to issuing bans on persons entering library premises, including the State Library. Without going through all the details, subsection 8 of those regulations makes it clear that someone can be banned for a period not exceeding two years as long as certain procedures are followed; that is, the library's board must issue a notice in writing to the person and the person has a reasonable opportunity to make submissions to the board opposing or supporting any proposed ban from the use of those facilities.

My female constituent indicates that those provisions of the Libraries Act and its regulations were not used prior to her being approached by two police officers, handcuffed and taken off to the City Watch House from the public premises of the State Library. My questions are as follows:

1. When will the minister reply to the serious questions that I raised in April this year in relation to this issue?

2. What legal authority did Mr Mackie and Mr Smith (the Director of the library) use to ban this person from public usage of the state library, and were Mr Mackie and Mr Smith in contravention of the Libraries Act and its regulations, in particular subsection 8, in relation to processes for banning people for a period of up to two years from the use of library facilities in South Australia?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (16:57): If I recall the original question asked by the honourable member, I assume that such matters would be before some sort of disciplinary tribunal, so I expect the reason that an answer has not been given is that one would want to await its outcome. I do not think the Hon. Rob Lucas does himself any credit in raising these allegations, which presumably are still before some sort of tribunal. Disciplinary matters take significant time.

If that is the case, the honourable member would have much better knowledge of it than I or the people he is asking as to whether or not this matter is before a tribunal. If it is, how does it help the service of justice in relation to having a fair outcome from the tribunal, both for his constituent and for the other person involved, by trying to air these sorts of allegations in public? As I said, I am not aware of whether there are such disciplinary hearings, but one would think so from the original allegations. It is appropriate that, if that is the case, we should all await the outcome before we further inflame the situation. I think the honourable member is acting quite inappropriately in trying to get around a proper consideration of this matter by raising it here in a public forum.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT