Mr STIRLING - 2001-06-05
The budget that the Treasurer presided over last week is a shambles. There is growing anxiety within the public service about the budget and just how long it will hold up. Public Sector Commissioner Hawkes in his paper entitled Building our Future canvassed the following three points: the consideration of a non-union approach to enterprise bargaining; extending individual contracts downwards in the public sector, which would remove entitlements such as redundancy clauses, as One.Tel employees have to their profound dismay discovered just this week; and the abolition of promotion appeals.
I ask the minister to rule out these three options now, or confirm the commissioner’s document is the blueprint for how your government will balance the budget after the election, if you get the chance?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I think that particular paper pre-dates the budget by some months, and in terms of the Commissioner for Public Employment, is it not fair that employees are provided with an option to consider doing something different? Would the opposition prefer to be in a position where public employees didn’t have the opportunity to explore other options?
Mr Stirling: Go and ask One.Tel employees how they feel.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Nhulunbuy.
Mr REED: In terms of not only this particular issue, but the negotiation of EBAs - some of which are currently underway - there are many options that are considered. Many of those options are immediately rejected by employees or their employee representatives. To suggest that nothing should be canvassed, this is the same approach as to their opposition to the introduction of new legislation this week to provide police with powers to deal with contemporary issues.
In terms of exploring those avenues, we have been through a long process to do that, and to come to a position where we can now introduce legislation.
In terms of employment, it is only reasonable and fair that some issues be raised, I daresay they have been scrubbed off the books already, they are certainly not on my radar screen ...
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: He just can’t help himself. In terms of those being initiatives that are on my radar screen, or the government’s, they are not. But I do recognise that it is appropriate when the Commissioner for Public Employment is talking to public servants about their future, about their conditions and how they might be enhanced, just as the employee representatives come forward with suggestions which, rightly, should also be considered by government. But to put yourself in a position where nothing can be considered, nothing can be debated simply because it does not comply with the strange views of the good member for Nhulunbuy, is just nonsensical, and from government’s point of view, is not an issue.
But I do understand why these matters would be raised and discussed and then appropriately rejected if that was the wish of employees. To consider it as a threat is just nonsensical, but to consider it as debate that is worth pursuing and matters that are worth discussing in the context of overall employment arrangements, I think, if it serves no other purpose, what it does do is provide an avenue for issues like that to be soundly rejected by opponents to the particular suggestions. So what is wrong with having an open debate? You are always calling for it and now that the Commissioner for Public Employment puts some issues on the table, and he has an open and transparent debate, you get all upset. Work out where you are coming from.
I ask the minister to rule out these three options now, or confirm the commissioner’s document is the blueprint for how your government will balance the budget after the election, if you get the chance?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I think that particular paper pre-dates the budget by some months, and in terms of the Commissioner for Public Employment, is it not fair that employees are provided with an option to consider doing something different? Would the opposition prefer to be in a position where public employees didn’t have the opportunity to explore other options?
Mr Stirling: Go and ask One.Tel employees how they feel.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Nhulunbuy.
Mr REED: In terms of not only this particular issue, but the negotiation of EBAs - some of which are currently underway - there are many options that are considered. Many of those options are immediately rejected by employees or their employee representatives. To suggest that nothing should be canvassed, this is the same approach as to their opposition to the introduction of new legislation this week to provide police with powers to deal with contemporary issues.
In terms of exploring those avenues, we have been through a long process to do that, and to come to a position where we can now introduce legislation.
In terms of employment, it is only reasonable and fair that some issues be raised, I daresay they have been scrubbed off the books already, they are certainly not on my radar screen ...
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: He just can’t help himself. In terms of those being initiatives that are on my radar screen, or the government’s, they are not. But I do recognise that it is appropriate when the Commissioner for Public Employment is talking to public servants about their future, about their conditions and how they might be enhanced, just as the employee representatives come forward with suggestions which, rightly, should also be considered by government. But to put yourself in a position where nothing can be considered, nothing can be debated simply because it does not comply with the strange views of the good member for Nhulunbuy, is just nonsensical, and from government’s point of view, is not an issue.
But I do understand why these matters would be raised and discussed and then appropriately rejected if that was the wish of employees. To consider it as a threat is just nonsensical, but to consider it as debate that is worth pursuing and matters that are worth discussing in the context of overall employment arrangements, I think, if it serves no other purpose, what it does do is provide an avenue for issues like that to be soundly rejected by opponents to the particular suggestions. So what is wrong with having an open debate? You are always calling for it and now that the Commissioner for Public Employment puts some issues on the table, and he has an open and transparent debate, you get all upset. Work out where you are coming from.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016