Page 2246 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 15 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Budget Consultations
MR KAINE: I would like to direct a question to the Chief Minister. Chief Minister, in your consultations leading up to the presentation of the budget today, did you consult with the trade unions on the ramifications of any staff reductions that will flow from your budget?
MS FOLLETT: Madam Speaker, in the lead-up to today's budget I have consulted with a wide range of community groups including, of course, the trade union movement. I listened very carefully to the points of view put to me by the trade unions and, indeed, by all groups who were consulted. Madam Speaker, there is an acknowledged view from the trade unions that jobs should be protected, and I am sure that most members here could well understand that view. I do not want to pre-empt what is in the budget, Madam Speaker, except to say that that issue has been canvassed and the trade unions, I believe, have a very good understanding of the financial realities that face the ACT. They realise that we have to deliver services in the most efficient way possible, and I think that they acknowledge that framing this budget has not been, and, indeed, framing the coming budgets for the ACT will not be, an easy task. I consider that the agreements that have been reached with trade unions in the past on job savings will stand us in good stead if there is occasion for job losses in the future. But, as I say, I am not about to pre-empt what is in the budget. I think that Mr Kaine can be assured that negotiations and full consultation will continue with the unions on this and on other matters.
MR KAINE: I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. Without attempting to pre-empt what is in the budget, what level of staff reductions did the trade unions agree to?
MS FOLLETT: Without wishing to pre-empt what is in the budget, Madam Speaker, I could say that they were not asked to agree to any level, and nor did they.
Legislative Process
MR STEVENSON: My question is also to the Chief Minister, Rosemary Follett. Public opinion clearly indicates that the people of Canberra want all legislation tabled for evaluation, comment and input - that is, consultation - for a minimum of 60 days. Will the Labor Party commit itself to a firm policy that people can rely on in this regard by changing the standing orders to allow for a minimum of 60 days, except for emergency legislation?
MS FOLLETT: Madam Speaker, I believe that on a strict interpretation of standing orders Mr Stevenson's question might be ruled out of order. Nevertheless, I will try to deal with it. I say that it might be out of order because, obviously, I do not have responsibility for the standing orders. Mr Stevenson has put forward a proposition that the majority of Canberra people would like to see legislation lie on the table for 60 days for consultation purposes. I have to say, Madam Speaker, that I have not heard that view put forward by a single Canberra citizen other than Mr Stevenson. If Mr Stevenson has irrefutable evidence of this he might do best to share it with us, because it is not an issue that has ever been put to me.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .