Page 1912 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 14 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT BILL 1994
[COGNATE REPORT AND BILL:
ESTABLISHMENT OF AN A.C.T. PUBLIC SERVICE -
SELECT COMMITTEE - REPORT
PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT (CONSEQUENTIAL AND
TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1994]
Debate resumed from 21 April 1994, on motion by Ms Follett:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MADAM SPEAKER: I remind members that we have previously resolved to debate this order of the day concurrently with the Assembly business order of the day relating to the report of the Select Committee on the Establishment of an ACT Public Service. In debating order of the day No. 4, members may also address their remarks to that Assembly business order of the day. Is it also the wish of the Assembly to debate these orders of the day concurrently with the Public Sector Management (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1994? There being no objection, that course will be followed, and I remind members that in debating order of the day No. 4 and the Assembly business order of the day they may also address their remarks to order of the day No. 5.
MR KAINE (8.30): What the Assembly is about to debate is a Bill that, in my view, is living proof of the failure of the Government. We had an opportunity in the ACT to create something new and different by way of a public service, and what we have is a Bill that fails totally in that respect. It fails so much that a good number of the employees of the ACT Government who will, if this Bill is enacted, fall under its control totally disagree with it. What we have is a dreary, dull, cut and paste reproduction of other old and tired legislation, in many cases from a bygone era. In fact, during the debates and the evidence presented to the select committee on this issue, it was twice noted that the contents of this Bill, and in some cases the views of government officials giving evidence to the committee, were representative of the thinking of the bureaucracy in the 1950s. I think that is what we have here. We have a piece of legislation that might have been great in the 1950s, but we are talking about the year 2000 just on the horizon, and I believe that it is totally inappropriate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .