Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 6 Hansard (1 September) . . Page.. 1635 ..
MS CARNELL (continuing):
At the beginning of this debate those opposite said, "Shock, horror, the Government changed the rules. The Government made PKF change the recommendations. Initially, the recommendations were that it should not be sold, and the Government said, `Go away and change the recommendations because we do not like them' ". Mr Corbell put out a media release to say that. Now he has determined that that is not the case at all, that that was wrong, because we have a statutory declaration from Mr Barbuto to say that that was not the case and that the only substantial changes in the draft of the report before the final report was the provision of greater detail about the financial impact of the recommendations. I will table that.
Mr Corbell was wrong at the beginning; he is wrong now. I come back to the comment I made in answering the last question. It is gutless to attack companies in this place if you are not willing to put any evidence on the table or say it outside the chamber.
MS TUCKER: My question is to the Chief Minister also. Chief Minister, in a letter sent to members regarding current negotiations to develop a revised SACS award with the Chamber of Commerce, you compared the ACT SACS award with the New South Wales SACS award, asked that we note the significant difference between them and hoped that it would be thought provoking. My immediate thoughts were what a scandalously low wage these people get for what is often very stressful and responsible work. Also, after inquiry I was informed that the New South Wales SACS award is being renegotiated at present. You also quoted the overtime rates in the ACT SACS award. My question is: How many workers do you believe actually take advantage of the overtime rate that now exists in the ACT SACS award? My information is very few. Secondly, do you think it fair to quote the New South Wales SACS award when it is presently being renegotiated? Thirdly, why is it appropriate to underpay valuable community sector workers just because New South Wales has been doing so?
MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, I think it is really essential that, whenever we look at pay rates, the sort of service delivery we have and the cost of service delivery, we look at what is happening in New South Wales. It is absolutely essential to do so. The reason it is essential to do so is that, quite seriously, we do not have any more money than New South Wales has. There are not extra dollars floating around for pay rates, conditions and so on above those in New South Wales.
Ms Tucker: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could I have the answer to the first part of the question as well?
MS CARNELL: No, you cannot. You will have whatever I want to give you.
MR SPEAKER: That is within standing orders. Please continue.
MS CARNELL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What I understood Ms Tucker to ask was - - -