Page 1915 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 14 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Subclause 74(5) says that where an executive staffing committee does not unanimously endorse a recommendation about an appointment or a promotion at the senior executive level the recommendation lapses. If one of these three people puts the black ball in the bag, the person who is being considered for promotion or appointment does not get the job. I repeat that that was done away with in this country, I thought, decades ago - not in this Government, though. To them, that is all right. I just pulled those things out to point out that there are some very curious provisions in this Bill. I doubt whether even the people who wrote it really understand the consequences.
In the broader sense, when I was speaking on tabling the report of the select committee this afternoon, I noted the point that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with this Bill amongst the Government's own employees, and it is dissatisfaction that is soundly based. These people did not all suddenly wake up yesterday morning and say, "We are all going to go out and protest against this Bill". They have examined the Bill, probably in greater depth than the people who wrote it have examined it, and they realise that there are enormous shortcomings and deficiencies in it. It is a fundamentally flawed Bill and one which the Government should never have put before this Assembly for consideration.
The Public Sector Union does not like the Bill, because it was sold out by the Chief Minister. She promised them the world and delivered them nothing. So they do not like it. They represent a fairly large number of employees - all the Public Sector Union employees in this Territory. That is a lot of people. The professional engineers, scientists and managers within the ACT Electricity and Water Authority do not like the Bill. The management of ACTEW does not like it. Getting closer to home, the Government's own direct employee, the Director of Public Prosecutions, does not like it. He did not just say that he did not like it. He gave some very substantive reasons why he did not like it, as did all these others. The Legal Aid Commission does not like it. The Public Sector Union, apart from not liking the conditions of service, mobility and the like, also did not like the roles and functions that are allotted to the Commissioner for Public Administration or the executive staffing committee that I just referred to, because they know what the consequences of the unfettered, unlimited exercise of power can mean for them. So there is major dissatisfaction.
I repeat what I said this afternoon, Madam Speaker. The Government is trying to put this Bill into effect, knowing that there is enormous dissatisfaction with it, knowing that so many of its own employees do not like what it is trying to foist on them and knowing that the Bill is fundamentally flawed legislation. What you are putting to the Assembly is second-rate legislation that is by no means reflective of 1990s thinking about management or anything else. Not only have you done that, but you expect the Assembly to deal with it on your terms. The Chief Minister said, "This Bill is not negotiable. It is an immutable Bill". It is so immutable that the Chief Minister has 109 amendments, and she has not extended the courtesy of giving this Assembly even an explanatory memorandum to explain why she wants the 109 amendments. All we have is a letter saying, "I am going to put these amendments up tomorrow". It simply is not good enough.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .