Page 2161 - Week 07 - Thursday, 16 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Kaine: You have 15 minutes.
MR LAMONT: That will be long enough, Mr Kaine, even for Mrs Carnell. I appreciate, Mr Kaine, that you understand the issues that I am about to address. It is just unfortunate that, even with your powers of persuasion, you have been unable to edify Mrs Carnell. As I said the last time that she spoke on this matter, I still think that she thinks that a section 50 transfer is some sort of monetary transaction between the Liberals' 250 fundraising club and the parliamentary party. She said, "We have acted to ensure that we get a continuation of section 50 mobility right".
That is not what the PSU are seeking. I thought that even Mrs Carnell would have understood that. They are seeking an absolute, unfettered right to return, within a specified period provided for under Part IV of the Public Service Act, to their home department, their home base. That is not a section 50 transfer; that is just putting up their hand and saying, "Tomorrow I am back with the Department of Finance" or "I am back with the Public Service Commission" or "I am back with my previous home base". That is not a section 50 transfer. Section 50, the provision that she is talking about and that the Public Sector Union originally raised, enables a department - which may not be the home department; which invariably is not - to transfer an officer to it at the same level. Section 50 is the technical procedure which allows that to occur where the receiving department agrees to it. That is not what is being sought by the PSU. Mrs Carnell fails to understand that issue.
Mrs Carnell went on at some length about enterprise bargaining and claimed that we were missing opportunities. Mrs Carnell, it has been this Labor Government that in fact has delivered substantial industrial reform through the structures put in place by a Federal Labor government. We understand the type of industrial reform that she wishes to introduce when we look at her one-page budget strategy that she delivered today, in which she talks about wiping $27m, or 1,000 jobs, from ACTION's bottom line. That is the sort of industrial reform and industrial bargaining process that she wishes to enter into. That most certainly is not what the unions want. In fact, they are asking for a continuation of the process. APESMA and the ETU - the unions in ACTEW - want a local bargaining arrangement to continue. We are happy for that to happen. In the discussions that we have had with APESMA I believe that we have reached substantial agreement to satisfy their requirements in relation to the transfer to a new service. It will not require substantial, if any, change to the Bill that is currently before us to accommodate their concerns. The proposition that Mrs Carnell raised was based on her interpretation of their words, and again she was wrong. That is not unusual.
Mrs Carnell made the criticism that we have put forward 109 amendments. Yes, we have. It is only appropriate that we do so, because it is part of the consultation process on this Bill. The Bill originally drafted was put out for consultation not only with the Opposition, the Independents and Mr Stevenson but also with the trade unions, and we have taken into account what they said. We have also taken into account the desires and aspirations of a whole range of agencies and corporate entities that exist within the ACT Government Service, as we should, and they form part of these amendments. I fail to see how it can be a criticism of the Government that we have actually taken into account the views of those people who have raised concerns with us. It is an appropriate way for the Government to act. I presume that what Mrs Carnell would say - heaven help us if she
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .