Comments on: Public Service chief refuses to investigate lying allegations http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/08/29/public-service-chief-refuses-to-investigate-lying-allegations/ now with extra source Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:36:07 +1100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Pablo http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/08/29/public-service-chief-refuses-to-investigate-lying-allegations/#comment-9982 Pablo Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-9982 I'm pretty sure, on my reading of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 that Ms Briggs has got it right, or at least has a good argument. Section 16(3) prevents much questioning in a "court or tribunal" of proceedings in Parliament or a Committee, and s 3 defines "tribunal" in terms that include bodies that can take evidence on oath or affirmation. Section 43 of the Public Service Act 1999 gives the APS Commissioner the same inquiry powers as the Auditor-General has under the Auditor-General Act 1997. Section 32(2) of that Act seems to permit the Auditor-General to direct that evidence be provided on oath or affirmation.<br /><br />So, it may not be that she won't, but that she can't. I’m pretty sure, on my reading of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 that Ms Briggs has got it right, or at least has a good argument. Section 16(3) prevents much questioning in a “court or tribunal” of proceedings in Parliament or a Committee, and s 3 defines “tribunal” in terms that include bodies that can take evidence on oath or affirmation. Section 43 of the Public Service Act 1999 gives the APS Commissioner the same inquiry powers as the Auditor-General has under the Auditor-General Act 1997. Section 32(2) of that Act seems to permit the Auditor-General to direct that evidence be provided on oath or affirmation.

So, it may not be that she won’t, but that she can’t.

]]> By: Neville Tivendale http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/08/29/public-service-chief-refuses-to-investigate-lying-allegations/#comment-9983 Neville Tivendale Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-9983 Let's not lose sight of what has been lost here; the effect of the actions of DoHA was to deny funding for a PET scanner in Tasmania by disputing the clinical efficacy of an important diagnostic tool. While Dr Ware was ultimately thwarted in establishing the service, oncology patients resident in Tasmania are shipped to Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide for this procedure, all on the taxpayers coin (as it should be). <br /><br />I wonder who will perform the cost analysis comparing the current arrangement with the capital and ongoing costs of establishing a unit in Tasmania?<br /><br /> Let’s not lose sight of what has been lost here; the effect of the actions of DoHA was to deny funding for a PET scanner in Tasmania by disputing the clinical efficacy of an important diagnostic tool. While Dr Ware was ultimately thwarted in establishing the service, oncology patients resident in Tasmania are shipped to Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide for this procedure, all on the taxpayers coin (as it should be).

I wonder who will perform the cost analysis comparing the current arrangement with the capital and ongoing costs of establishing a unit in Tasmania?

]]>