Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 4 Hansard (17 April) . . Page.. 1004 ..
MRS CARNELL: The independent umpire, I am sure, wants agreements that can be ratified by the commission. From our perspective totally, we want the agreements in their current form ratified - end of deal. Mr Berry and Ms McRae might be very interested to know that the majority of unions actually support that approach. But, from our perspective, I do not mind what goes to the commission, as long as it is in line with the agreements that we - and, I assume, the unions - reached in good faith. What the paperwork looks like should not worry you, and it certainly does not worry us, as long as it can be ratified.
Ms McRae: Then why do you keep changing it?
MRS CARNELL: We do not.
MS FOLLETT: Mr Speaker, I direct a question without notice to the Attorney-General. I refer Mr Humphries to the ACT Corrective Services minute which I tabled in the Assembly yesterday and which showed the quite extraordinary lengths to which staff at the Belconnen Remand Centre are having to go in order to meet their budget bottom line. Mr Speaker, under one of the headings in that minute - "Other Initiatives" - there is the instruction that "the provision of free issue to detainees will cease". My question to Mr Humphries is: What is included in the free issue to detainees, and does it, for example, include condoms or clean needles?
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, it is a good question. I do not know what the free issue includes. I will take that part of the question on notice. As to the issue of generally living within budgets at the Remand Centre and the issues facing the centre as it moves towards a more cost-effective model, let me say that my advice is that today the Government is likely to sign an enterprise bargaining agreement with the relevant union in respect of Corrective Services.
MR MOORE: Mr Speaker, my question also is to Mr Humphries, but in his role as Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning. Mr Humphries, I understand that the appropriate local area planning advisory committee that covers Turner has rejected the proposed three-storey development at 19-23 Condamine Street, Turner, and has recommended instead the development of a two-storey development, with the maximum number of units being 24. What will be your response to the recommendations of that LAPAC and its decision?