Page 1891 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 14 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR BERRY (3.58): I should say at the outset that I was not a particularly willing recruit to this committee; but circumstances caused me to be part of it, and since I became involved in it I have found it extremely interesting. This committee has been examining the issue of how we deal with our public service in the Territory well into the future, and that is important to us. The committee has also been working around quite complex legislation and industrial relations conflict, and dealing with another government. So necessarily, for an ambitious politician, it is a good feeding ground if one wants to make a point or two.
The facts of the matter are that we have to come up with a piece of legislation that delivers us a public service in the shortest timeframe possible. In relation to the recommendations, I have put a dissenting report to the report by the committee because I think a few more things need to be said. On the one hand, you cannot, in my view, accept that just because somebody complains about a particular piece of legislation their argument is correct. I think it is often the case that there is some fear of the unknown in these matters. But it is most important that at the end of the debate there be a full understanding of what people complain about before you take up the complainant's view and recommend that legislation of this order be deferred. That is the first thing I oppose strenuously. The chair of the committee made it clear at the outset that it was not his aim to upset the Government's timetable on the introduction of this Bill. I have said in my dissenting report that I emphatically agree with that sentiment, and I intend to do everything I can to make sure that the Bill passes as quickly as it can. Deferring it is not the answer.
In the recommendations that were agreed to by the committee - I think it is in recommendations 2 and 3 - a framework is set out that would enable examination of the legislation against the performance of those public servants, or Government Service officers, who were covered by the legislation. Recommendation 1 establishes a committee to inquire into and report from time to time on the implementation of the legislation establishing the Australian Capital Territory Government Service. The following recommendations 2 and 3 provide a framework whereby that committee could do its work immediately. That means that, in those areas where there have been complaints about what people think the legislation might do to them, they very clearly will have the opportunity to prove that. As a member of that committee, where there are shortcomings in the legislation I would be perfectly prepared to make recommendations to the Government to improve the situation. But you cannot make those recommendations without having first seen this complex legislation in place.
The same applies in relation to ACTEW. I think the most telling part of the recommendation that ACTEW should be exempted until 30 September 1994 is these words:
... to assess the impact of the legislation on the ability of ACTEW to compete with the private sector in the provision of energy and water services.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .