[4.35 p.m.]
Ms BURNET - I believe that we're on clause 18, the amendments from the Attorney. I've got a question for the Attorney, but I also wanted to say to the Attorney that I'm very pleased to see that you've taken on some of the discussions that we had in relation to this clause. It's an important change that you've made and I think what it does is help recognise some of those State Service principles and the implications of the words that you had in previously. So, I'm pleased to see this amendment.
I just have a question in relation to 'apolitical' to you, Attorney. Will the requirement to have to be apolitical apply to the Office of the Coordinator‑General and what action will be taken if the Coordinator‑General doesn't comply? Just as a hypothetical.
Mr BARNETT - Through you, Chair. Thanks very much to the honourable member for Clark and also thank you for your observations regarding the collaborative approach of my office and myself, much appreciated. The advice is that this applies to all State Service representatives.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 -
Section 9 amended (The State Service Code of Conduct)
Ms BURNET - Chair, I'll read the amendments to clause 19. I move ‑
First Amendment
Page 15, paragraph (a).
Leave out that paragraph.
Second Amendment
Page 16, paragraph (b).
Leave out that paragraph.
Third Amendment
Same page, paragraph (d).
Leave out that paragraph.
Fourth Amendment
Page 18, paragraph (h).
Leave out that paragraph.
Fifth Amendment
Same page, paragraph (j).
Leave out that paragraph.
Sixth Amendment
Same page, paragraph (k).
Leave out that paragraph.
Seventh Amendment
Same page, paragraph (l).
Leave out that paragraph.
Now, as you're aware, Chair, this is relating to the principal act being the State Services Act and I did talk about that in my second reading speech, but I'll just expand a little more. I have considered this clause and every part of it very, very carefully.
I wholeheartedly support sections 5A and 5B. These sections explicitly prohibit conduct of state servants that create a risk to the safety and wellbeing of a child and, importantly, those sections apply at all times. There is no need to establish any nexus at all between the conduct those sections prohibit and the person's employment. They apply at all times to all state servants. They meet the problem identified in the commission of inquiry, which was barriers preventing the investigation of misconduct against children by state servants, where that misconduct occurred either wholly or partially outside the course of their employment, but where those relationships with those children were intertwined with the power structures established through the employment. The expansion of responsibility or liability in Sections 5A and 5B meet that challenge head on.
The minister's amendments in clause 19(a), (b), (d), (h), (j), (k) and (l) make no reference to child safety or child safety laws. That's because they have no connection to child safety. Just the expansion of the circumstances in which they must now behave with honesty and integrity outside their employment, the law outside their employment, act with due care and diligence outside their employment, comply with the State Service employment outside their employment, and comply with any other conduct requirements prescribed by regulation requirements outside their employment.
Well, that is not exactly what the amended act, if these amendments pass, will say. It is how any State servant will feel. It is how they will have to approach their conduct outside of work because of that uncertainty, and that will have a chilling effect on employees. They will be asking themselves, 'Am I acting in connection with my employment if I'm on the way to work or on my way home or on my lunch break?' Of course, they will err on the side of cause. It will have a chilling effect on their conduct outside work. The Attorney should be familiar with this argument because he was using it yesterday during the debate on the conversion practices bill.
Everyone would be aware of the cuts proposed to the TMAG budget and the strong show of support from staff opposing those cuts. Rallies have been held and will continue to be held during lunch breaks and after work hours held and will continue to be, including on the weekend. Yet the CPSU is already reporting that workers being asked to explain attendance at rallies, such as the TMAG rally and rallies that they are attending in their lunch break. This is exactly the sort of chilling effect the government's amendments will have on the rights of workers to participate in these sorts of actions.
These concerns have been raised in the submissions of the AMA and the unions, and those concerns haven't gone away, by the way. The concern that these amendments will erode the privacy of State servants and that important divide between the public and private lives which we all should have - and remember, we're talking about 36,000 public servants. It's not a handful; it's 36,000. So, when you are talking about such a significant change for such a large number of workers, you have to ask: is this change really necessary, or can the problem highlighted by the Commission of Inquiry be overcome, remedied, in a less intrusive way? Of course, the answer is it can, and it will be, by sections (5)(a) and (5)(b).
Remember, section 5(a) requires employees to not commit reportable conduct at any time. 'Reportable conduct has a very expansive definition. I'm not going to read it out, but it covers all manner of offences that might pose a risk to child safety.
(5)(b) An employee must not engage at any time in conduct which poses an unreasonable risk to the safety or wellbeing of a child accessing a service operated by the agency.
Once you've reached that conclusion, the government's amendments I'm seeking to leave out are not necessary to overcome the problem identified by the COI. I argue that the impact that they have on public servants is not justified, and those clauses should be left out of the bill, which is precisely what my amendments seek to do. I might add that the union's concerns have not gone away, and they are advocating for 36,000 public servants.
Before I hear any other parts of the debate on this amendment, I just want to quote from the State Service Annual Report 2026, which was tabled today. So, there are 37,000 State servants in this state.
For 2025-2026, there were 264 code of conduct matters under investigation. Only 130 of those were finalised. In 20 of those investigations, this misconduct was not substantiated or resolved through alternative means. [TBC]
That is a number to watch, because if my amendments don't get support from this House, the number of investigations, and the number of unsubstantiated investigations, will no doubt increase significantly.
Ms BURNET - I appreciate everybody's contributions to this amendment. I want to make a first statement, and I have made this before in relation to this debate, but we are here not just to accept the amendments and legislations that are brought before us, but we're here to critically analyse it and really dig deep to look at how we can make this better. I sometimes feel that if we have a comment by the Attorney‑General that we have this eminent Mr Woolcott, who's done the report, that's fine. I'm sure he's got the best credentials in the world, Attorney, but that doesn't stop us actually analysing what the Woolcott Review has said. What I've heard, Attorney, is that I see that there's a lot of cherry picking in relation to the recommendations from the Woolcott report, and I have to challenge that. I just cannot accept that that's the way that we can just accept these amendments to the legislation because I see that as problematic, because in addition to recommending an expansion of the responsibilities of state servants beyond in the course of employment to in connection with employment, Woolcott recommended the establishment of a State Service commissioner, and we don't have one. That goes to the heart of one of Ms Rosol's arguments about comparing these changes from the Attorney-General. The Australian Public Service has a public service commissioner, so there is that check and balance for public servants in place. So it's expanding the disciplinary powers but it hasn't put into place the safeguards. There are numerous recommendations that Mr Woolcott made that the government hasn't implemented. So, it's just interesting what is recommended from Woolcott and what isn't.
I go to the point that Ms Rosol has made and I know, Ms Rosol, you have made very strong public commitments to ensuring child safety, and I absolutely appreciate it, and you've made the comment that we're balancing child safety and public servant rights but, again, I go to parts 5A and 5B, which pick up that point. We have to always question what the government is trying to put in legislation - I think that's our job. I think by framing it as all about child safety ‑ of course it's not, because it's absolutely about eroding public service rights. I feel very strongly about that. I feel that whilst there's so many good parts to the government's bill, it is so important that we amend this so that we do protect public servants.
After Mr Benjamin's letter had gone to all MPs, I sent a letter out to explain my concerns. From part of that letter, I just want to say that I support the commission of inquiry's recommendations concerning child safety and expected behaviour, which are reflected in the bill. My amendments do not seek to weaken those reforms. They seek to remove the broader changes that extend the code of conduct from conduct in the course of employment to conduct in connection with employment ‑ so much broader and so much more an incursion into everybody's lives in the public service. The broader proposal goes beyond the commission of inquiry's specific child safety recommendations. I cannot emphasise that anymore.
The Woolcott review recommended that state servants comply with every element of the code at all times, relying on community sentiment and practice in other jurisdictions. The government has not adopted that recommendation directly, but its proposed wording would still broaden the circumstances in which conduct can be treated as employment.
In closing, I feel that making sure that we are getting that balance right of having those provisions, which the government has in parts of this clause, but adding my amendments will actually make this strong; it doesn't reduce the strength of child safety, but it does protect the 36 or 37,000 public servants in Tasmania.