Page 2316 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 22 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
They say, "We believe that our rights need to be protected and they are not protected under the present arrangements. Please hold off". They are the ones who have said, in no uncertain terms, "Please forget this rhetoric about the 1 July deadline. Give us time to sort out the matter". They have very good reason for making that representation to the Government, because the Federal Parliament is yet to consider the reciprocal legislation dealing with this matter. The Federal Parliament will consider that legislation at the end of next week, I understand, or the middle of next week. As members well know, there will be amendments before the Federal Parliament to insert a further two-year transitional period of mobility between the two public services. That is an extremely good reason, it seems to me, to hold off until we have some indication of what the Federal Parliament is going to do.
This Government promised more than two years ago to have this stuff in place. Now, at the death knell, it rushes forward with more than 100 amendments. Those are the Chief Minister's amendments alone. There are 101 amendments before the house today. Originally there were only 87 amendments. The rest have come in, in dribs and drabs, since those original amendments were tabled. Now you have the nerve to say that Mrs Carnell dares to bring late amendments to the Assembly.
Ms Follett: I said no such thing.
MR HUMPHRIES: For goodness sake, where are you people coming from? What hypocrites you are to be making those sorts of charges!
I want to put on record that I do not see this process as being appropriate. I want to put on record the fact that my party sees many problems with this legislation. If we win government in next February's election we believe that we will have to come back to this legislation and make many changes. In the meantime, while it is desirable to have the goal of a separate public service, it is more desirable to meet the goal of having a good public service with a sound legislative basis. We on this side of the house do not believe that that is being achieved by this Bill. I sit down with six minutes of my time remaining.
MS SZUTY (11.20): I am on the record in this chamber and in the public arena as saying that I continue to have an open mind on the issue of when we should finalise debate on this legislation. Before I talk substantively about the process as I see it, I would like to remind members of two recommendations in the report of the Select Committee on the Establishment of an ACT Public Service which we debated last week in this Assembly. Recommendation 4 said, in part:
ACTEW should be exempted from the legislation pending further review, with the review to be completed by 30 September 1994 ...
My understanding, as a result of our discussions at a round table conference on Monday, is that ACTEW are now happy with the provisions of the Public Sector Management Bill as they will apply to them. So far as ACTEW is concerned, I see no further reason to delay the passage of this legislation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .