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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 11 Hansard (13 December) . . Page.. 2993 ..

MS FOLLETT (continuing):

Mrs Carnell has remained silent on that matter. The report continued:

The after tax return on leave and furlough cash out is substantially less than the real value of the leave when taken as leave. Further, the committee is concerned that the proposed legislation appears to ignore the beneficial purpose of leave.

The committee went on:

The committee is strongly of the view that the provisions in the Bill relating to the cash out of leave should be reviewed to ensure equity for those currently serving SES officers who accept executive contracts and that the Bill be amended to ensure that there be no ambiguity in relation to the carry over of sick leave credits.

Mr Speaker, what we have seen from Mrs Carnell now is a complete reversal of her original position. What she said about the Public Accounts Committee's report showed how little this Government understood what was in their own legislation. The Government's response to the Public Accounts Committee majority report said, at paragraph 8:

The Committee expressed concerns in paragraphs 5.19 to 5.21, 6.4, and 6.6, that both current SES officers and other officers who might in future sign an executive contract will be forced to resign from the Service and to cash out or otherwise surrender accumulated recreation leave, long service leave and sick leave entitlements. This is simply not correct.

That is what Mrs Carnell said in response to the Public Accounts Committee's report.

Mrs Carnell: That is still right.

MS FOLLETT: Mrs Carnell, as your own amendment proves, the Public Accounts Committee was correct. Our interpretation of the legislation was far more astute than yours. This is certainly the case, as shown previously in relation to part-time employment in the SES. What Mrs Carnell has told this house is at complete variance with what was contained in the explanatory memorandum. We are yet to have any reconciliation of those two very diverse points of view, Mr Speaker, which is a matter which I had asked you to look at.

Mr Speaker, I think that the amendment that Mrs Carnell now proposes is a far more reasonable proposition, but I will not resile from the fact that in the original Government proposition there was a clearly stated intention that officers taking on a contract would cash out their leave entitlements. There is no other possible interpretation that could be put on the information that has been provided on that matter. I think Mrs Carnell should admit it was a mistake, just as her statements on part-time employment were a mistake, and just say that they have had to revise their view. As this legislation develops, it is more and more apparent that it has been done in enormous haste. Not all "i"s have been dotted and not all "t"s have been crossed.

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