Mr TONY SMITH(11.50 a.m.) —The standing and integrity of the Public Service must be at all times beyond reproach. That that is the case in relation particularly to people in the diplomatic corps goes without saying. The diplomatic corps is probably the most visible presence of our country overseas. Consequently, it is absolutely essential to ensure that legislation is in place which will work evenly both across members of that corps who may have been appointed by the Governor-General and across the whole Public Service structure.

It is no secret that, for a number of years, questions have been raised about the behaviour of some diplomats overseas, particularly in South-East Asia. Cooperative international relations and the passing of Crimes Act legislation some years ago has now seen tourists being charged for interfering with children. Recently, a committal proceeding occurred here in Canberra where a former diplomat was charged with certain offences involving the exploitation and sexual abuse of children.

It is a truism—as those involved in the criminal law are well aware—to say that charges of this nature are the easiest to make and often the most difficult to refute. However, I am not so sure that that principle necessarily applies in situations that we have experienced under the operation of this act. It is particularly acute when cultural and ethnic differences enter the equation and where there is a requirement for interpreters. Obviously, the best defence is frequently the assertion that the complainant was induced to make the complaint for monetary, accommodation or other considerations. I would think—and this is a wider issue, admittedly—that evidentiary provisions need to be introduced to permit the taking of evidence from children by way of video presentation, as is currently done in Queensland, for complaints of this nature. That does not prohibit cross-examination of the complainant for the provisions to work.

The Public Service Amendment Bill 1996 clarifies the presumption which underpins the parent legislation—that is, that unattached officers are liable to Public Service disciplinary procedures. It is a fairly reasonable assumption that this bill has flowed from some of the allegations that have arisen in recent times along the lines that I have mentioned.

The bill has particular application to the diplomatic corps. The act defines `unattached officer' for discipline purposes as an officer who is in employment outside the department and is not performing duty in the department, or an officer who is on certain types of leave of absence from the service and does not hold an office in the department. An officer ceases to be unattached upon resumption of duty in the department. Heads of Australian diplomatic missions who were officers of the service prior to becoming heads of diplomatic missions are unattached officers while performing the role of head of mission.

It has been argued—and the argument appears to have been largely unresolved—that diplomats, although public servants per se, are not susceptible to Public Service disciplinary procedures. However, it equally can be argued that the intention always was that diplomats are public servants first and foremost and, therefore, should be liable to Public Service rules and guidelines. The existing legislation had exhibited a weakness in this respect, and the amending bill removes the doubt by making unattached officers expressly liable to Public Service disciplinary procedures.

The question of retrospectivity, as has been mentioned by the honourable member for Canberra (Mr McMullan), is a very important one, and it is one on which I have reflected at some length. The government itself in fact teased out the potential problem, rather than any particular case situation having arisen. If it had arisen, and if there were particular case situations involved, I would have reflected much more strongly about the position I would take in relation to supporting the particular bill.

But, having examined what had occurred, and having examined the fact that the government identified what was a potential problem and now seeks, by way of legislation, to entrench the already established view that unattached officers are in no different a position from that of run-of-the-mill public servants, my view is that it does not affect the rule against retrospectivity. In all of the circumstances, while these issues are never easy and require the utmost care, it is my view in this case that this particular piece of legislation does not impinge upon that very well settled principle.

The bill, in my submission, is a good bill. In effect, it demonstrates the keen perception of the department to ensure that this particular area does not go unattended and does not leave a potential anomaly in the legislation. It is important obviously, as I said at the very outset, that these particular matters are tidied up and that an even approach across the board is exhibited in respect of matters of this nature.

As I said right at the beginning, it is entirely correct for the insurance and maintenance of a respected Public Service that provisions of this nature apply across the board and can deal with a potential situation as and when it might arise. For all of those reasons, and accepting the reservations of the honourable member for Canberra and others in relation to the bill, I am satisfied that this particular bill does not transgress the principle against retrospectivity.