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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (25 February) . . Page.. 363 ..

Mr Humphries: Governments.

MR BERRY: Mr Humphries says "governments". He has not yet got used to the fact that he is in a minority government and sometimes this Assembly tells them what to do. This matter has also been confirmed in an appeal in relation to public holidays. The Full Bench went on to say, during the course of the decision:

The public holidays test case set a national safety net standard which should appropriately be adopted in the award. The setting of that standard does not entail a judgment that no extra generally observed holidays or public holidays be available. But it is based on a conclusion that the setting of such extra public holidays should be a matter within the autonomy of either the relevant State government, or of the parties by agreement.

We very clearly have the authority to move on this matter. It is also important that we bring it on today. We need to debate it this week because a range of awards have been affected by the commission's decision, and this Assembly has an important role to defend the rights and working conditions of its constituents. There will be a picnic next Monday. Some workers out there will be disenfranchised if we do not deal with it this week. It is important that we deal with it today. We have the power to do it, and there is no reason why the suspension of standing orders should not be agreed to.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (11.17): Mr Speaker, I want to put on record the Government's reasons for not supporting the suspension of standing orders. Let me say at the outset that I fully appreciate that the legislation Mr Berry is introducing today will be introduced and that it will almost certainly be passed on Thursday. I think it is a matter of regret that a number of members have already indicated their position on the legislation, even before it is introduced, even before there has been a chance to put another side to this argument. I happen to think there are very good reasons why legislation like this ought not to be passed, particularly in such a short space of time. The core of that argument is that there are a number of implications - - -

Mr Moore: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think Mr Humphries should be speaking to the suspension of standing orders. You were very tight on whether Mr Berry was or not, and I would ask you to be as tight with Mr Humphries.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I am speaking directly to that point. I am talking about the short timeframe. That is why I am opposing the suspension of standing orders.

Mr Berry: No; that is the substantive debate, Mr Speaker.

MR HUMPHRIES: No, it is not.

Mr Berry: When responding to the introduction of the Bill, perhaps on Thursday, he should raise those issues, not during the course of the suspension debate.

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