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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 8 Hansard (26 October) . . Page.. 2140 ..

MR DE DOMENICO (continuing):

As Mrs Carnell said, there will be central coordination on the Government and management side, to ensure consistency with the Government's broad approach to public administration. There has to be. There has to be a centralised approach for consistency purposes. But, within this framework, the Government is proposing a whole-of-government approach on certain key employment issues which will assist in maintaining a cohesive public service. These include base pay and classification structures as well as core conditions of employment that apply generally across agencies. It also includes supporting an approach to award reform which will be service-wide and which will provide a cohesive and more manageable scheme of awards in their new safety net role.

Issues of productivity and efficiency are variable and need to be focused on specific programs and activities. Once again, that is classic Laurie Brereton, classic Bob Carr, classic Wayne Goss, classic anyone in the Labor Party who wants to be sensible. There is also a wide range of work and employment matters which should be considered in the bargaining process. They include, amongst other things, increasing opportunities for employees to take up part-time employment where this is compatible with the nature and requirements of their jobs. There may be some areas of ACT Government Service employment where you cannot take on part-time employment because of the idiosyncrasies of the job. What Ms Tucker wants to do, if you get part-time employment in one area, is to have it across the board. That is absolute nonsense. I think she knows that, too, by the way. If she does not know that, I think she has got an earful from someone and has believed everything she has been told.

Job-sharing arrangements can also be considered in this context. Opportunities for introducing home-based work should also be considered, for example. I wonder how Ms Tucker feels about that. Is this Government doing the right thing at an agency level if we are negotiating with certain people about home-based work? Should we consider that? If we do consider that and it is agreed to by the people who want it, does it go across the board in the Government Service? Do we leave our nurses at home, for example, and let them operate out of their backyards? That might sound simplistic to Ms Tucker, but does she really know what she is doing by moving this motion? I do not think she does. Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, such work arrangements can have considerable benefits for employees, their families and the Government. However, they must be considered in the context of local workplace needs and requirements, which will vary greatly across the system.

Let us have a look at occupational health and safety. The Government will continue to take a broad and inclusive approach to occupational health and safety issues. The Government supports having a healthy and safe workplace for all its employees and seeks to achieve this in a consultative and cooperative manner. The greatest impact on injury prevention is achieved by local managers. You do not have to listen to me, because the Tillinghast report that I made public today confirmed that approach. The best way to stop workplace injuries and disease is to let managers at the local workplace have control of what happens at that workplace. The Government will have a broad approach to centralising the basics of occupational health and safety, but you have to get down to the workplace. As I said, it is not just me saying that, it is not just this Government saying that; that is the result of expert advice given to all governments around the country.

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