Page 2160 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 28 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Over the years I have mentioned that we could save on paper in this place. We could have double-sided speeches. I notice the estimates report comes to us on a single-sided paper this year. I think that is done for the look of it, but if we print it on double-sided paper we would be saving paper and constantly reducing the need to produce it whether from virgin native forests or from plantations. In closing, I want to refer to the LA(MS) agreement, which everybody’s staff has been involved in negotiations over for some time. It is not looking as though it will be good for me and the way in which I employ people in my office. I have a number of part-time staff. There is no way with my allocation I could cover all the portfolios without having a number of staff rather than say two full-time staff. The agreement that appears to be in negotiations—which the executive signs off on, by the way, and which no doubt reflects the executive office’s ability to run smoothly—will make it impossible for me to increase people’s hours through using a part-time allocation. If members do not want to listen, they will not know what my concerns are and might have the wrong idea of what my concerns are.
I am putting it on the record today that the agreement that is currently in negotiation and which I wrote to Mr Stanhope about is not looking as though it is going to allow my staff to work those extra hours over the weeks that we are sitting. Remember, we are sitting two very late nights this week. Of course, they will have TOIL, time in lieu, but everyone can end up with too much time in lieu because it is not fair that my office be empty the week after a sitting week simply because there is no need for them at that time. There are a lot of issues around this and I probably related them too simply here today. There have been very complex and long negotiations. An agreement is still to be reached and I think it is a pity that my concerns, as related by a letter to Mr Stanhope and of course through my staff negotiations, do not appear to have been given any consideration in the final agreement.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Proposed expenditure—Part 1.2—ACT Executive, $5,439,000 (payments on behalf of the territory), totalling $5,439,000.
MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (11.43): Mr Deputy Speaker, as you highlight, the government will appropriate $5.439 million for the ACT executive this financial year. That brings into light the performance of this executive in this financial year. Last financial year one minister was dumped from many of his portfolios, and the Chief Minister has taken on more and more portfolio positions from his ministers.
Sadly it is increasingly becoming an executive of one. I am not sure that it is the ego of the Chief Minister that is driving that; I fear it is necessity. I have some degree of sympathy for him. He has quite clearly reached the view that the only way he can get the job done is to do it all himself. That often presents challenges in this place. I have often observed that the volume of work that the Chief Minister is now trying to manage on his own account is probably excessive.
This raises some deeper issues about the calibre of some of the ministers. I know Mr Stanhope would say, “The problem is that the Assembly is too small; I don’t have
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .