Page 1921 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 14 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
could not deliver. In fact, those amendments to the Federal Act, if they pass, will mean a better deal for public servants in the ACT. Who was responsible for achieving that? The Liberal Party, for heaven's sake. Why? Because, as I have said and will continue to say time and time again in this place, it seems to me that the Liberal Party and, in certain circumstances, the Independents are the people who stand in areas where sensible people meet.
When we talk about commonsense and where sensible people meet, the commonsense thing to do, if we all agree that this is the most important piece of legislation debated by this place since 1992 - and I, for one, believe that - is to make sure that we get it right the first time. There is no excuse for anyone to say that the Government has not had a chance to get it right. As I said, it was first notified by the Federal Government in April 1992. But quite obviously, from all the public comments that have been made by so many groups - and they are not what we would call political apparatchiks; we are talking about the DPP, the unions, ACTEW, the Legal Aid Commission, the Trades and Labour Council and all sorts of professional commentators - this Bill needs to go back to the drawing board. The Chief Minister, by trying to introduce 109 amendments, seems to be agreeing.
The Opposition is saying that we should have another look at this Bill. Let us make sure that we avail ourselves of the opportunity that is before us to present a piece of legislation that can be seen by other jurisdictions as the benchmark for legislation for public servants. We have a chance to do it now. We all know that it is very difficult to undo legislation once it is in place, so let us make sure that we have another good look at it. Let us make sure that we have another good look at the 109 amendments. Let us make sure that we have another good look at Mrs Carnell's whistleblower Bill and compare it with the one that is presented by the Chief Minister. In other words, let us do the sensible, commonsense thing to do. Quite obviously, the Chief Minister did not do that.
To me, it would have been the prudent thing to tie up all the loose ends and all the concerns that the Chief Minister had as far back as 1992 before presenting the Bill to the house. You should not have presented the Bill to the house, hoping for the best, and then effectively within 24 hours of the Bill being debated presented 109 amendments and gone to the media saying, "This is not negotiable because it is good legislation". I close my comments by repeating the words of Mr Lamont. They are important for us to remember. He said:
We do not want to end up with a public service Act of 300 or 400 pages outlining in a very prescriptive manner every single possibility that may arise in the ACT public service over the next five decades, because invariably under such legislation things become too bureaucratic and it becomes an inhibition on effective and efficient management within the public sector.
I am suggesting, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this Bill is too bureaucratic. It will become an inhibition on effective and efficient management of the public sector. We need to have a look at it again, and I urge those opposite to listen to what we in the Opposition have to say. Let us have another look at this Bill and make something really good out of it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .