Page 984 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 31 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
ACTEW Enterprise Agreement
MR WESTENDE: Madam Speaker, my question without notice is directed to the Minister for Urban Services, Mr Connolly. Did you approve an enterprise agreement which would save ACTEW at least $500,000 a year? Is it a fact that the Government has decided, on the eve of a hearing before the Industrial Relations Commission, to oppose the agreement, despite its having been approved by you? Why has the Government decided to abandon an agreement which would leave ACTEW's customers $500,000 a year better off?
MR CONNOLLY: Madam Speaker, the Government has not abandoned the agreement. It is true that I did sign an enterprise agreement, but the agreement is not consistent with the form of other agreements in place in the ACT. The agreement would have brought significant benefits to the ACT, and still will, in my view. What we are doing, as Mr Berry indicated, is continuing negotiations with that union to get the agreement into a form consistent with the mirror agreement, with the possibility which has always been there for some side arrangements. So the suggestion that this matter is abandoned, finished, lost or opposed is rather overstating the situation.
As Mr Berry indicated, this matter, which was mentioned in the commission yesterday, is back for mention on Friday. As Mr Berry again indicated in his answer to the question, officials are working to try to hammer the document I signed, which does provide benefits to workers and benefits to the community, into a form that is more consistent with the overall enterprise arrangements in such a way that we can ideally preserve the benefit to government and the benefit to workers.
Magistrates Court - Practice Directions
MRS GRASSBY: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Attorney-General. Can the Minister advise the Assembly of any changes to practice directions for the ACT Magistrates Court?
MR CONNOLLY: Madam Speaker, I am sure that members always take a great interest in practice directions in the Magistrates Court, but one that is coming into force this week is one that people should be particularly pleased about. I said to this Assembly back on 17 February that the Government would be moving to achieve savings for policing in this Territory by reducing the need for unnecessary police attendance at the Magistrates Court. I think that is something that even Mr Humphries has agreed in the past was an area where we could well achieve savings in such a way that we do not adversely impact on police services to the community.
I am pleased to be able to advise the Assembly that the Chief Magistrate, Mr Cahill, has signed a practice direction to require that, when there is a plea of guilty on all summary offences, common assault offences, theft or destroying or damaging property offences where the value of the property is less than $1,000, and theft or damaging or destroying property offences where the property is a motor vehicle, the police informant will not be required to attend in court. So on that vast raft of summary offences, common assault offences, minor theft or damage to property offences or theft or damage to motor vehicles, police informants will no longer be required as a matter of course to attend court.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .