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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (11 May) . . Page.. 1450 ..

MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, this disallowance motion relates to provisions in two determinations under the Legislative Assembly (Members' Staff) Act which set out terms and conditions for the employment of staff of members. These determinations authorise improvements to severance benefits and increased flexibility in relation to annual leave. Mr Berry's motion relates to the cashing out provision for annual leave in Determinations 81 and 82 of 2000. These determinations relate to staff of members and staff of office-holders respectively. Mr Speaker, these determinations give members and their staff greater flexibility in relation to annual leave. As a result of these determinations, members may-

Mr Osborne: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am just going to put out a press release: Wayne Berry, anti choice. I am looking forward to the day that finally-

MS CARNELL: Yes, he is anti choice.

MR SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Sit down.

MS CARNELL: I am happy to be pro choice. Mr Speaker, these determinations give members and their staff greater flexibility in relation to annual leave. As a result of these determinations, members may now agree to their staff cashing out annual leave. Of course, such arrangements must be met within members' existing budget allocations and only with members' approval.

Mr Speaker, the government has tried to introduce arrangements whereby employment conditions are mutually agreed between staff and the employing member. These determinations allow additional flexibility. There is no detriment to LA(MS) staff. There is no change to the annual leave entitlement. The flexibility to cash out annual leave will not have any additional costs, since annual leave could previously be accumulated by LA(MS) staff and paid out on separation.

I wrote to all members to consult on these proposed changes. I received a comment from Mr Stanhope and from the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, but not from anybody else. Nobody else was concerned about these changes. Mr Stanhope welcomed the changes to severance benefits in these determinations, but both he and the union raised concerns about the occupational health and safety impact of permitting staff to cash out annual leave.

We agree that staff should be encouraged to take leave. However, in my response to Mr Stanhope, I made it clear that LAMS staff are not currently compelled to take annual leave and conceivably could not take any leave until it was paid out on separation. The additional flexibility available under these determinations is unlikely to have the negative impact suggested.

Mr Speaker, this is different, of course, from the public service. In the public service, as we know, once ACT public servants accrue 12 weeks leave, or more than 12 weeks annual leave, they are required to start using that leave, or alternatively, in some cases, are deemed to be on leave even when they are not. I think most people then go on leave. It does show that the LA(MS) Act already is very different. In practice there is no reason

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