Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (29 February) . . Page.. 328 ..
MS TUCKER: I move:
Division 3.2, page 8, line 25, omit the Division, substitute the following Division:
"Division 3.2-Staff and consultants
22 Staff
(1) The staff of the authority are employed under the Public Sector Management Act 1994.(2) That Act applies in relation to the management of the staff of the corporation.
23 Consultants
(1) The authority may engage consultants.(2) Subsection (1) does not confer on the authority a power to enter into a contract of employment."
MS CARNELL (Chief Minister) (11.09): Mr Speaker, as I already said, the Government will not be supporting this amendment. This amendment provides for staff of the corporation or authority to be public servants, public sector employees. The new clause 23 appears to specifically limit the corporation to staff and consultants. No contractors could be engaged. This clause clearly indicates that Ms Tucker has no understanding of the commercial imperatives facing the stadium authority or, indeed, any enterprise in this sort of arena. If taken literally it means that all groundsmen, cleaners and caterers et cetera would need to be public servants.
Everybody who knows anything about the way stadiums operate would understand that that is simply not an appropriate way to go, Mr Speaker. This would severely limit the capacity of the stadium to act in a commercial manner. It would severely limit the capacity of the stadium to create the returns that both the codes and the ACT community want. It would certainly mean that a number of the people who are working there at the moment would no longer be able to work there. I would not have thought that that was what members of this Assembly wanted to do, because the people who are there at the moment, on the whole, are not public servants.
MR QUINLAN (11.10): Mr Speaker, I cannot accept the literal interpretation that Ms Carnell has put on Ms Tucker's amendment; that, simply because an amendment says "the authority may engage consultants", somehow that can be immediately interpreted as precluding this authority from - - -
Ms Carnell: That is my advice, Mr Quinlan.
MR QUINLAN: Well, you had better table it right now. I am not a lawyer, but I read it and it says "the authority may engage consultants". I cannot see any exclusion from this particular organisation engaging contractors if and when necessary. I think it is a rather straw man argument. It expands what Ms Tucker has said and what Ms Tucker has included in her amendment. I simply cannot accept it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .