Page 1092 - Week 04 - Thursday, 1 April 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
agreement and the ACT public sector agreement create anomalies not just between ACTEW and the rest of the ACT public sector but also within ACTEW itself. For example, some ACTEW staff would be in a quite different position from others in terms of the agreed bargaining process.
The real concerns which have been raised by unions which are party to the ACT public sector agreement about this fragmentation are shared by this Government. Earlier on, Mr Deputy Speaker, I read from a press release from the Trades and Labour Council. They are concerned that we maintain the public sector agreement because of the effects that they perceive it will have on their employment prospects for the future. Inconsistency of treatment is an important issue for our employees both within and outside of ACTEW. Thirdly, the ACTEW-ETU agreement anticipates a number of the details about local productivity that are now under consideration by the Government. It is due to these inconsistencies that ACTEW has been directed to indicate to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission that it is not ready to proceed with the ratification of that agreement.
Mr Deputy Speaker, much has been made in debate and in the media of the savings claimed to arise from that agreement. By asking that the matter not proceed before the commission, improvements in productivity in ACTEW have not been lost. An equivalent level of productivity enhancement is achievable through the framework of the ACT public sector agreement. Indeed, the framework agreement envisages a process of continued productivity improvement over the next two years. You just cannot ignore that these factors have occurred. As I mentioned earlier, like any agreement, goodwill and commitment will be needed to maximise the benefits of the ACT public sector enterprise bargain. The fact of the matter is that ACTEW management were out of step with that agreement.
Understandably, the union is agitated about the process. If the Government's commitment to the broad application of the terms of this agreement is seen to be compromised, then it is hard to expect that the unions will put their hearts into the hard work involved in negotiating real and sustainable productivity improvements. It is a narrow view of the world that sees the issues simply in terms of productivity gains arising from an agreement between ACTEW and less than about a third of its work force. Governments need to take a broad view of issues such as this and look at the implications across the whole public sector, rather than just settle for a set of productivity benefits agreed to by part of the work force of one agency only.
Against this background the Government is looking to ACTEW to sit down with the ETU and to develop an agreement which is consistent with the Government's policy and the ACT public sector agreement. In this regard I note that the ETU is party to the Federal Public Service agreement which contains exactly the same productivity measures that we have mirrored in the ACT public sector agreement. Where productivity measures specific to ACTEW have been identified and are consistent with the ACT public sector enterprise bargaining framework, these should be capable of being adopted in any new arrangements.
Mr De Domenico: Do you support Mr Connolly?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .