Page 2159 - Week 07 - Thursday, 16 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Moore expressed a view that we should deal with the issue of the transfer first and then with the issue of public sector reform by way of the Assembly committee which was established by the Assembly this morning.
Mr Lamont: The standing committee.
MS SZUTY: Yes, the Standing Committee on the Public Sector, which was established by the Assembly this morning. Indeed, that committee will have nine months or so to consider the broader issues of public sector reform. Mr Moore also remarked that the select committee's report was lacking in detail. I mentioned earlier that Mr Kaine believed that the primary reason for that was that the committee just simply did not have the time to consider the Bill on a clause by clause basis. Mr Moore also made some fairly helpful suggestions about a possible inquiry into public sector reform. That is an issue that the Standing Committee on the Public Sector may like to take a keen interest in.
Mr Lamont, in his remarks, talked about the meeting between APESMA and Government representatives to address some of APESMA's concerns. I am not sure of the current status of negotiations; but, if agreement is being reached on outstanding issues, then I think that is a good thing and it is good news for the ACT. Perhaps the Public Sector Management Bill has now undergone a transition from an immutable document to a working document. That is a quite important step for this Assembly to have achieved.
Mrs Grassby, in her remarks, talked about the importance of the Public Sector Management Bill being a simple and streamlined piece of legislation consolidated in one place. That is a view that has been widely supported by members of this Assembly.
Mrs Carnell covered many issues in her remarks, saying that the Bill covers terms, conditions and procedures rather than outcomes. I agree that it does; but I am pleased to see the principles of the public service that the Government has outlined in the Bill, from memory, in clauses 6, 7 and 8. Mrs Carnell also talked about the term "ACT Government Service" being used as opposed to "ACT Public Service". I too have some concern about the language that the Public Sector Management Bill has used.
I would like to return briefly to the fundamental issues around the content of the Bill which are in dispute. The Legal Aid Commission, I understand, are not happy with the Public Sector Management Bill provisions as they currently stand, and neither is the Director of Public Prosecutions; but ACTEW might be making some progress towards being satisfied with them, perhaps with some amendments being proposed by the Government. I am also conscious of recommendation 5 of the committee's report, which I supported. I remind members of what recommendation 5 says:
The Committee recommends that, until the matters dealt with at recommendations 2, 3 and 4 are adequately addressed -
those recommendations address the provisions in the Public Sector Management Bill for the Legal Aid Commission, the Director of Public Prosecutions and ACTEW -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .