Page 1927 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 14 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I am in the position, Madam Speaker, of being able to indicate that, following discussions with that organisation commencing at 6 o'clock and concluding at about 7.30 this evening, I believe that we have the basis for an agreement with that organisation to address their issues of concern. Their concerns are the same as ours - to allow ACTEW to be a flexible organisation, to enable it not only to respond to its social obligations as determined by the government of the day but also to compete commercially, as it wants to do, not only within the ACT but also nationally and internationally. That is something that the Government concurs with. It is a position that APESMA, the organisation representing the engineers, quite clearly wants to establish. The Government has indicated that we are prepared to consider the additional issues that were discussed tonight. As the Chief Minister said earlier on in discussions with APESMA, I certainly hope that before the determination of the detail stage of this Bill we are able to bring to this Assembly propositions which recognise the agreements that may be reached in that regard.
Obviously, our position will have some fluidity between now and when we reach that point. We do not intend to inflame the situation at all, and APESMA have indicated that they will not be reinstituting the bans. I think that simple fact is some indication of the success of discussions as late as this evening. Despite the comments of Mr De Domenico, I do not take that as being in any way a sign of failure, for I had the fortunate experience - - -
Mr De Domenico: I did not say that at all.
MR LAMONT: Those same types of discussions have given rise to the amendments which have been put forward by the Government. We do not resile from that. We do not resile from the fact that, during discussions, during consultation, during negotiation, we have said, "Okay. You have raised a point. We will address it". Where that has meant that we needed to bring forward an amendment we have not resiled from doing so, nor should we have. It would have been irresponsible of us in proceeding with this Bill to have had such comprehensive discussions, only to say, "Go away. We are not going to amend our Bill. We are not going to take into account any of the issues you raised". For you to stand up here and suggest that it is some sign of weakness or a fundamental flaw in the Bill for us to agree with those types of amendments is poppycock, Mr De Domenico, and a failure on your part to recognise the simple fact that we are prepared to consult, that we are prepared to concede on points and that we wish to make this a working Bill. That is the position that we have arrived at on this side of the house, and obviously Mr Moore has adopted the same view. We believe that we will work inexorably towards a point where we deal with each of the issues as it is necessary to deal with them.
I was saying earlier on that, unlike Mr De Domenico, I had the fortunate experience in the 1970s to be involved with the separation of the Northern Territory Public Service from the Commonwealth Public Service from the perspective of a trade union official. I was then the secretary of the Australian Public Service Association, representing division officers in the ACT, and a member of the national council of that organisation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .