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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 4 Hansard (6 May) . . Page.. 984 ..

Mr Speaker, Labor's approach to this matter belongs to yesteryear. It belongs to an ideology which is no longer relevant to today's Canberra. People in these positions are paid very considerable sums of money. They need to prove through contracts that they perform to get that money. If they do not perform pursuant to those contracts, which they make openly with the Government and which are tabled in this place, then they ought not to receive the packages which they now enjoy. This legislation puts in place that arrangement in respect of one remaining outstanding officer within the public sector. Mr Speaker, it makes eminent commonsense, and I commend it to the Assembly.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Training) (11.50), in reply: Whilst, as Mr Moore said, the Opposition, and indeed the Greens, are consistent in their continued opposition to this basic principle - I would suggest, Mr Speaker, that it is very much a commonsense principle - perhaps they should hearken to what Mr Moore has said, and what was also alluded to by my colleague Mr Humphries, namely, that this is about the one remaining senior executive who does not come under the same conditions all other senior executives in the ACT come under. I think that is something the Opposition really need to reflect on because, if they do not support this Bill, they will be creating two different categories of provisions. I think that, in itself, is inherently unfair, and they should really have a little bit of a think about that, Mr Speaker. Quite clearly, what this Bill picks up is what is now an anomaly, and it brings the CIT Act into line with the Public Sector Management Act.

Mr Humphries has gone through the various reasons for dismissal under the current CIT Act. Indeed, I can see that, if the Government tried to get rid of someone for misbehaviour, that could be very subjective in itself and might be quite wrong. But I think it is a pretty simple principle we have here now. This is the one remaining senior executive who, if this Bill is not passed, will have different terms and conditions from those of all the other senior executives. That, in itself, I think, is a very undesirable situation.

The current chief executive officer of the CIT, Mr Veenker, was consulted and is quite calm about these particular changes. I think that is something that the Opposition should realise too. So, this is simply a commonsense amendment. The Opposition perhaps should just have the good grace to accept that it lost the battle several years ago when the initial Public Sector Management Act amendments were passed and that to not vote for this Bill now would be to create an anomaly which would be very unfair, I think, to a number of people, Mr Speaker. That would not be good legislative practice. This is a follow-on Bill to a substantive Bill that has already been passed - a substantive principle of operation that has already been agreed to by a majority of this Assembly - and I would think the tradition in those circumstances would be for the Opposition to accept that and not oppose the passage of this amending piece of legislation.

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