Page 1892 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 14 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Those words are curious, but I do not think they are very helpful. ACTEW as a performer has done very well. In the past, they have made major advances. Most people here would know and understand that ACTEW inherited some legacies from the Commonwealth, and they are issues the Government has had to deal with. ACTEW has done a good job, in my view, in dealing with those matters that make it more efficient. We heard from APESMA and from the chairman of the board of ACTEW about matters with which they were concerned, but much of it was about the fear of what might happen rather than the proof of what would happen. We have an opportunity to examine closely the effect of new and complex legislation like this on those areas that have had some complaints. We have an opportunity for the Government to look at proposed amendments to the legislation that might affect those areas.
I think the legislation ought to be introduced and, once it is introduced, closely examined as to the performance of those groups of employees and professionals who are covered by it. I think that would be a sensible approach. Delaying it will not help us on that score. In fact, if it is delayed, we will have to go through the same process again further down the track. We will still have to test the legislation against the performance of the professionals and the Government Service officers who are covered by it. I think we should get on with the job as soon as we can.
Mr De Domenico: Even if it is bad legislation?
MR BERRY: It is not bad legislation.
Mr De Domenico: That is your view.
MR BERRY: You can use all the rhetoric you like about these matters. I heard Mr Humphries calling it ramshackle legislation. You would have sworn that that had come from the lips of a politician; that is a tired old piece of work.
Madam Speaker, I am opposed to the delay. I think recommendations 2 and 3 are useful. I am opposed to recommendation 4. I do not think it serves any purpose at all. I think we ought to be testing ACTEW against the legislation to see whether they can usefully perform against it. I do not think a case was made out by the chairman of the board of ACTEW and I do not think a case was made out by the union officials from APESMA on that score. I would be completely happy to meet with them again in the committee process, where they may demonstrate, if they can, that certain parts of their operations cannot be enhanced or improved or are failing because of the legislation. They have not made out that case yet, in my view. The recommendation to defer the legislation I have already referred to.
The committee then dealt with the whistleblower legislation. The whistleblower protection legislation was put together by Mrs Carnell as freestanding legislation. One of the principal arguments she used was that everybody else in Australia had done it as stand-alone legislation. On my examination of it, nobody was preparing public service legislation at the same time, so it would be unlikely that the opportunity presented itself to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .