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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (30 November) . . Page.. 3469 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

make sure that these requirements apply at both decision and review stages. Unions have raised a number of substantive policy issues that have not been taken up. However, I hope that further consultation on the basis of the bill and the draft management standards may settle these issues.

Mr Speaker, unions have sought the inclusion of a range of procedural guidance in the bill. The government has instead preferred a higher level statement in the bill, with procedural detail in the draft management standards. As subordinate laws, the standards are disallowable. Therefore, it is possible to achieve the right balance through a more enduring framework and statement of obligations and rights in the primary law, complemented by the detail in the management standards. There is capacity for the commissioner to make further procedural directions or for agencies to develop particular procedures, although these would need to be consistent with the legislative framework, which includes natural justice standards.

Mr Speaker, unions have also suggested review of all employment decisions, including general grievances, through a system of review panels including union representatives in all cases. It was proposed that these panels would make recommendations to the Commissioner for Public Administration for final decision-making. This proposal was made on the understanding that it was consistent with what had been agreed by agencies and staff under certified agreements. However, processes in certified agreements do not mandate union nominees and do not include the commissioner as decision-maker. Where panels are used, they include a convenor appointed from a list maintained by the commissioner, a departmental nominee, as well as a staff or union nominee at the election of the staff member seeking the review. The panels make recommendations to the chief executive, who is the final decision maker. Further, review panels would not generally be convened to investigate general grievances.

While agencies, staff and unions agreed to these processes in response to conditions at the time of negotiating enterprise agreements, different options were available in drafting this bill. The new arrangements to promote the independence of the office of the Commissioner for Public Administration, separate from executive responsibilities in my department, has brought forward an important option for second tier review. Therefore, the preference expressed in certified agreements that decisions should be agency based has been complemented by external procedural review.

The flexibility inherent in enterprise bargaining processes means that agencies can continue to make arrangements with staff to establish particular procedures, whether they be panel based or with or without union involvement. Certified agreements provide the capacity to respond to local operational and industrial conditions.

The legislative framework set out in the bill would be a default framework that applies where certified agreements do not apply. However, it is one that provides a high standard of rigorous review as well as an appropriate balance of public interest and individual rights.

Another issue flagged in consultation with the unions is the inclusion of wilful inefficiency as a ground for misconduct. Mr Speaker, nobody could seriously expect that ongoing careless or deliberate poor performance should be ignored. This ground was included to complement the existing requirement for public employees to perform duties

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