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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 7 Hansard (19 October) . . Page.. 1854 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I would argue that this is extremely relevant because this is another motion before the Assembly which deals with the Government's budget. This motion is about the Government's budget. You are asking us, effectively, to withdraw or defer the making of savings from this arrangement. Mr Speaker, there is a serious implication for the whole of this area.

MR SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Continue, Mr Humphries.

MR HUMPHRIES: I would ask the Assembly to consider seriously whether it is possible for us to bring down a budget with all these bits and pieces being chopped about and withdrawn as the debate goes on in this place. This is our first budget in five years. We have a mandate to come forward with some of these reforms in the ACT public sector area of expenditure. We believe that we have a certain entitlement to put forward these proposals. With respect, Mr Speaker, the Assembly ought to give us a little bit of leeway in the way in which we bring them forward.

Ms McRae says that the issue is not the Richmond Fellowship. I am not so sure that it is not. If Ms McRae says that she has no problem with the Richmond Fellowship, then I think the question needs to be asked: Why is it not possible for that body to pick up the work that was previously done within the government sector and provide a high quality of service to the children of the ACT? I think it is perfectly possible for that to happen. Clearly, there is a significant budgetary implication for the Government in that decision, and the Government ought to be able to proceed with it.

Ms McRae referred to negotiations with the staff and how supposedly this matter is being rushed through. I think it is worth emphasising that negotiations have gone on for some time with the staff at the shelter and with the CPSU about the way in which these sorts of things should be advanced. Negotiations with the staff were first introduced in early June of this year, and Family Services management has had regular meetings with staff in both the union setting and staff meetings since that time. The proposals were not, as Ms McRae suggested, thrust upon staff in a sudden way. Staff were not under pressure, except in the sense that we had a proposal to put forward and we wanted to see it advanced.

The proposal did not get very far in the context of those negotiations, because particularly the CPSU indicated that their response to the requirement or the desire to save money in this context - and it is a very expensive area in which to provide services in the ACT - was to reclassify jobs at the centre to higher levels and to add more staffing positions to the shelter. I am sure that any area of government would like to feel that they could call on that extra resource. That is a very good thing to be able to ask for, but it is an irresponsible thing to demand and to take industrial action over in the present context of the ACT's budget. It is highly irresponsible. The result of that behaviour on the part of the union particularly would have been to increase the cost of what is already a very small service, even though it is a very important one. This is not the way that a responsible government advances the question of how best to serve very vulnerable young people in our community.

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