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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 7 Hansard (23 September) . . Page.. 2108 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

If there are victims in this they are the bus drivers, the upholsterers, the mechanics and the electricians. But let us not make any mistake here: There is another set of victims and they are those very same senior managers within ACTION whose services will be the ones that are contracted out. How can we have a process which has any integrity when those very same people are asked to advocate on behalf of their masters, the Government, under that sort of cloud? I do not think it is possible.

We talk about some ridiculous claims. Members of the crossbench may very well scoff at the ridiculous claims. Well, cop this one. The parties appear before the commission and are about to strike a reasonable compromise, or it appears to be so. Then the Government says, "Hang on a second, we want another million dollars worth of savings because you have held up the introduction of the network". All of a sudden, in front of the Industrial Relations Commissioner, the goalpost shifts.

Ms Carnell: No. We passed the budget. There is a budget.

MR HARGREAVES: Mr Speaker, the Industrial Relations Commissioner did not take part in the passing of the budget. The commissioner is oblivious to the bits of the budget and really could not give two hoots about the budget. The Industrial Relations Commission is charged with arbitrating and, hopefully, conciliating on industrial matters placed before it. That, in fact, is what the commissioner has attempted to do. But she cannot possibly do that if every time she completes a meeting the goalpost changes and somebody else comes to the table with something silly. If one of the claims put forward before we go to the IRC is a bit ludicrous or over the top - I accept Mr Rugendyke's point; I agree with him on that and I think it was a silly one - so too was that business of the Government coming forward and asking for that kind of saving when, in fact, $1m worth of savings for a couple of weeks' delay is beyond the pale. It is my understanding that the commissioner said just that.

I am suggesting to you, Mr Speaker, that the process is quite smelly. This is not being done in good faith. This motion that I am putting to you today merely says, "Stop". We are not saying, "Do not go down the track for ever and a day". We are saying, "Stop now. Give us proof of your negotiations in good faith. Take away the sword of Damocles over the heads of ACTION management, the drivers, the upholsterers, the electricians and the mechanics. Take it away. You do not need it. There is no reason for it". If you cannot come up with a reasonable settlement, the IRC will determine that. If at the end of the day you decide that that particular settlement is unpalatable you can always come back to this Assembly and talk to us about it.

While ever the Government has the parallel track of evaluating these expressions of interest, Mr Speaker, against the outcome of the IRC, it is a case of: "Well, I will have the best deal I can get out of this but I am looking at it at the same time". So, of course, the Transport Workers Unions can up the ante. Then the Government is going to up the ante and, at the end of the day, nothing will be solved and the best option will be to flog it off.

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