Page 2372 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 22 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS SZUTY (4.38): I have listened to what the Chief Minister and Mr Kaine have said about this particular matter. I would have to say that I do not have any particular problem with the provisions in respect of the joint council as it has been proposed that they be amended by the Chief Minister. I think the amendment enshrines the current practice in respect of the joint council. However, I will take the opportunity to express a reservation I have about my understanding that the management standards yet to be developed will be reviewed and disallowable by this Assembly. I understand that it is a matter that we will return to later in the debate, and I will take the opportunity to speak again then.
MR MOORE (4.38): It is interesting that in the initial instance the legislation was drawn up stating that management standards "may make provision" and then we have a tightening up of that to "shall provide". Madam Speaker, essentially this is an administrative issue. I have no idea why it is in the Bill at all, apart from the fact that it is in other legislation in other jurisdictions. It seems to me that it is an administrative matter and ought to be handled as an administrative matter.
The definition - and I hope that Ms Szuty, and indeed the Government, pay particular attention to this - limits the council to a management-union body. It may well be that such a body, if organised in an administrative way, could bring in some other form of expertise which could improve the management standards no end. For example, a management consultant may well be brought in and be represented. It may be appropriate for a business council dealing with the Government to be represented. It may be appropriate for representation from, for example, a legal aid commissioner where the management standards affect such an office, depending how public sector reform goes.
It seems to me that by keeping this in the legislation at all you are simply making a rod for your back and, most importantly, limiting what you can do with such a council. To me, that seems strange. I do not object to the notion of a joint council. But why the heck is it in the legislation when it ought to be an administrative function? So, for those reasons, Madam Speaker, I shall oppose the amendment and shall support the foreshadowed amendment of Mrs Carnell.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (4.41): I thought I had made clear, Madam Speaker, the reason for this amendment coming forward from the Government. Obviously I had not, or obviously other members are being deliberately deaf on this occasion. The amendment has come forward from the Government following our consultation on this Bill. Madam Speaker, this morning we had a great song and dance from members about their consultation on the Bill and how they wish to amend the Bill. What I am saying to you is that in consultation on the joint council provisions in this Bill it was very apparent that particularly the unions wished to have this provision strengthened. Following that consultation, the Government accepts that point, because we fully accept the role and the nature of the joint management-union body which is proposed as the joint council. Madam Speaker, I again commend the amendment to the Assembly. If members are genuine in their commitment to consultation and to listening to what people say, then they will accept the amendment as well.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .