Page 2690 - Week 10 - Thursday, 15 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
PARENTAL LEAVE (PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYEES) BILL 1992
Detail Stage
Clause 1
Debate resumed.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3
MR DE DOMENICO (3.23): Madam Speaker, I believe that a number of amendments have been circulated in my name. Should my first amendment fail to get up, I will then remove Nos 4, 5 and 6 on that list, because they are all interlinked. I move:
Page 2, insert the following new definition: "'code of practice' means a code of practice that is negotiated between the officers of the relevant Government department, employers and employees groups.".
The amendment inserts a definition of "code of practice". The draft code of practice, in the opinion of the Liberal Party, would meet individual needs while not being restrictive. It would be a constantly changing provision that meets changing socioeconomic work force requirements and can be enforced through jawboning; that is, employers who fail to institute parental leave provisions could be mentioned in the Assembly as not complying with the draft code, for example. We think it is an eminently better way of putting in a piece of legislation than the way the Government has done it.
MR BERRY (Minister for Health, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (3.24): Madam Speaker, the Government will be opposing the amendment. The amendment sets out to insert a definition of "code of practice". If this change were made, the legislation would be invalid; it would have no operation. There is no code of practice of which we are aware, and therefore the Bill would become essentially meaningless. There is no provision in the Bill to develop a code of practice, to give the clause meaning later. Under the rules of interpretation, the Bill must be given meaning by assuming that it refers to a code of practice existing at the time of making it, and there is none.
Major changes would be needed to the Bill to enable the parental leave test case decision to be regarded as a code of practice or to enable a code of practice to be developed under the Bill. Quite simply, the Bill proposed by the Government picks up the parental leave test case and that becomes the code of practice by law. It is a nonsense for Mr De Domenico to suggest that the parental leave test case be replaced by a code of practice, yet to be resolved by people jawboning.
As I explained to Mr De Domenico this morning, if workers who do not have award coverage now gain award coverage, they will be able to have an award clause that will pick up parental leave provisions that will override the Act.
Mr De Domenico: Only if they are in an existing award. If they are not in an award, the Industrial Relations Commission has no jurisdiction.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .