Page 2167 - Week 07 - Thursday, 16 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES: One page. What was that we heard about one-page logic before? Here is some one-page logic, a very bland statement:
... I have not seen any argument that would cause me to agree to delay this bill ...
I think a better way of putting it would have been, "I have seen lots of arguments, but I have not recognised any of them". There were, apparently, plenty before this committee. They came from all the people you would expect to have some knowledge of the matter. But that was not enough for Mr Berry, whose logic in these matters has always been very simple: "What the party does must be right. Right or wrong, let us go ahead if that is what we have to do. If that is what the mates say, we will go ahead and do it".
Madam Speaker, there are many pieces of this jigsaw which do not at this stage fit in. What will be the role of Federal legislation in making this happen? We do not know at this stage. How will the Public Interest Disclosure Bill, which is before the Assembly and which the committee has recommended be the basis for whistleblower protection in this framework, be set up? How will it integrate with the Bill? We cannot answer that question comprehensibly while the final Bill has not been resolved. What will ACTEW's role be in this structure? What will the DPP's role be in this structure? What will the Legal Aid Commission's role be in this structure? How will the Statutory Appointments Bill affect appointments of people who are agency heads under this structure? What will the Industrial Relations Commission's role be in deciding the final outcome of this structure? What will the scope for such things as enterprise agreements be within this structure? Why are none of the major client groups, the unions and others involved in this structure happy with this outcome?
Madam Speaker, Mr Moore said this morning in the course of the debate on the disallowance motion - if I am summarising correctly - that, if the whole process has been a mistake or a stuff-up, then it is best to chuck the whole thing out. I think he agrees - - -
Mr Moore: And you would not do it.
MR HUMPHRIES: No. We did not agree about whether it was a mistake or not, but you agree that there are big problems with this Bill. You have said it on the record. You should take your own advice and chuck out this piece of legislation.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (10.09), in reply: Madam Speaker, before I close the debate on the in-principle stage of the Public Sector Management Bill, I would like to address some of the points that have been made by other speakers in this debate. I would also like to make some general comments about the legislation itself. I have heard from a number of Liberal members their views of what this Bill ought to have encompassed. As far as I am concerned, what they appear to want is the complete opposite of what I believe represents the best possible outcome for the ACT public service. I have also had a look at the Liberals' submission to the ACT Legislative Assembly Select Committee on the Establishment of an ACT Public Service, so my comments are informed also by that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .