Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 10 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 2616 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

Their simple comment is, "We will not have a bar of it". There is not too much analysis, though. There is not too much critical analysis of the document. As I said, the only other document of any substance that was put to us was the submission from the Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants - it was only a one-page document - but because they endorsed the principles of the Bill they were not asked to come and give evidence.

The Leader of the Opposition quotes Mr Tony Ayers. It is very interesting that Mr Tony Ayers did not seek to come and give evidence to the committee. The Leader of the Opposition was relying on a statement that he made in some public forum. Mr Tony Ayers happens to be one of the top 10 men in the Australian Public Service, which itself has its senior executives on contract. If he feels so strongly about it, "How many officers in his department are there on contract?", one has to ask. I will guarantee that there are many. So, again, it is a personal view expressed outside the field in which Mr Tony Ayers is practising, and it is at variance with the policy of the Australian Public Service that he works for and represents.

Mr Speaker, again I submit that what purports to be the major committee report, which in fact is the personal opinion of the chair, is decidedly lacking in substance because it takes no account of the evidence that was presented to the committee and represents nothing but her own personal views. I submit that it would be improper for this Assembly, and it would certainly be inappropriate for the Government, to be influenced one way or another in connection with this matter by this committee report. Only two members of the committee were qualified to comment on the committee proceedings and to participate in the report. The chair was one, and she has what I submit to be a subjective view of the matter. I dissent from most of it on the grounds that I have already put forward. My objection to her position rests on the fact that she took no notice of the evidence that was presented. The evidence in no way substantiates her report, and so I dissent - it is not a minority report - from the report submitted by the chair. I suggest that the proper course of action for this Assembly is to do the same.

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister) (11.08): I present the Government's response to the report. On 19 October 1995 the Assembly referred to the committee the Public Sector Management (Amendment) Bill 1995 for inquiry and report by 29 November 1995. I subsequently wrote to the committee, providing copies of exposure drafts of the Remuneration Tribunal Bill 1995 and the Remuneration Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1995. The committee's report was provided to me on 29 November, and, in accordance with my undertaking, I responded by way of a note to each member on Friday, 1 December.

Ms Follett: I did not get that.

MRS CARNELL: Well, everybody did get it, last Friday. I recognise that this Bill will be debated later this week, although from comments made by Ms Follett earlier you would not realise that we were not debating the Bill right now.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .