Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

None . . Page.. 925 ..

Ms McRae: Go on. It might change my vote.

MR WHITECROSS: No. It does cover some issues which are of interest not only to ACTEW employees but also to the public at large. It sets out values and principles which organisations under the control of the Government, using Government money, dealing with the public on behalf of the Government, should abide by. Under the legislation proposed by the Government we are taking ACTEW outside all these principles and all these values. No doubt the Government will say, as the Government has said on everything else, “Do not worry. We have taken them out of these provisions, but nothing will change”. It comes back to the same thing. Why would we take ACTEW out of these provisions when only 12 months ago this parliament decided that it was appropriate that ACTEW be covered by these provisions?

These are significant issues dealing with responsiveness to the Government, service to the public, fairness and integrity, effectiveness and efficiency, fairness in decision-making, best practices, safe and healthy working environments, appropriate decision-making structures which incorporate notions of industrial democracy, disclosure of interests which could be perceived to be a conflict of interest, and not taking improper advantage of positions. These are significant issues which the general public and the parliament have a right to expect will be part of the values and principles under which ACTEW will operate. I think that the approach taken here, of legislating for these things, is an appropriate one. A case simply has not been made out that we should take ACTEW outside these provisions.

Mr Speaker, the Public Sector Management Act also deals with a range of other issues of great importance to people, issues which traditionally have been the subject of legislation, not of the vague flexibility that Mrs Carnell has talked about, including provisions ranging to long service leave, maternity leave, disciplinary procedures, grievance procedures, merit protection and whistleblowing; even such important, if somewhat arcane, issues as the right of employees of ACTEW to stand for public office and then to be reappointed should they not succeed. These are all provisions which, in a much longer process than we have been given to deal with this issue today, were considered and passed by this parliament only a year ago. We should not, with a stroke of the pen, be taking ACTEW outside these well thought out provisions. Let ACTEW stay within these provisions and work with these provisions. If this provision or that provision should not apply to a corporatised ACTEW, let a case be made out. What we have is a blanket, holus-bolus removal of ACTEW from the provisions of the Public Sector Management Act.

We have the absurdity, Mr Speaker, of the amending Bill proposing that the company shall, in consultation with relevant staff organisations, establish and maintain appeal, review and grievance procedures, for instance. There already are appeal, review and grievance procedures. The Chief Minister is always to be heard running around town and talking about eliminating duplication. Here she is supporting a Bill before this parliament which is going to create duplication. It is going to create two sets of appeal, review and grievance procedures. We already have tried and true appeal, review and grievance procedures which are widely understood by the community, which are widely understood by ACTEW employees, and which are widely understood by relevant staff organisations. Why would we want to throw them out, without even having talked to staff associations, and say, “Let us start again.”? It is not the correct approach.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .