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

None . . Page.. 926 ..

Obviously, if we are going to throw this out, staff organisations will say to the Government, “We want these things duplicated”. Why go down that path? Why not stick to the tried and true procedures which already exist? Why not abide by the values and general principles set out in the Public Sector Management Act? Why not stick to the existing statutory framework for dealing with issues like long service leave, maternity leave, sick leave, grievances, dismissals for inefficiency and all the other things which the Public Sector Management Act deals with? It seems to me that this is a well thought out and good framework for employment in the public sector, and it is an appropriate framework to take into the future. If the company has a problem that it wants to come back to this parliament with, let it come back to this parliament with specifics. The Government should not come to us asking us for a general exemption from the provisions of this Act.

MR DE DOMENICO (Minister for Urban Services) (10.28): Mr Speaker, the Government will not be supporting Mr Whitecross's amendment, for the basic reason that we have just agreed, as an Assembly, to corporatise ACTEW. One of the major points in corporatising any entity, Mr Whitecross, is to remove it from the shackles of the public service. I will tell you another reason why we will be opposing your amendment. Had Mr Whitecross and members opposite spoken to the unions involved in ACTEW, they would have known that they wish to be removed from the Public Sector Management Act. If you speak to the unions, Mr Whitecross, you will find that they want to be removed from the Public Sector Management Act. Without saying much more, Mr Speaker, the Government will not be supporting this amendment because it goes down to the very basis of why we are corporatising.

MR BERRY (10.29): This again exposes the Government over its industrial relations stand on the matter of the employees of ACTEW. Clearly, Mr Whitecross's amendment seeks to offer protection from what might be described as the ravages of a management hell-bent on introducing the “efficiencies” and “flexibility” that the Liberals use in their rhetoric in relation to this matter. That really gets to the guts of the issue. This is about removing the protection for workers which is provided under the Public Sector Management Act. Sometimes that is described as removing the shackles. That is described as being more flexible, basically so that we can bore it up the workers.

Mr De Domenico: Oh, dear! Chuck them all out in the street! Hit them over the head with a bit of four-by-two! Run them over with the tanks!

MR BERRY: No; reduce their wages and conditions and discard them at will. This battle went on over the Public Sector Management Act in 1994 and there was a review of the position. The review found that the Public Sector Management Act should continue to apply. It was a lengthy inquiry which dealt with all of the issues. From my memory, I think I was on it. I think Mr Kaine might have been on it as well, and perhaps Ms Szuty in those days.

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