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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 531 ..

Mrs Carnell: Read the recommendation.

MR MOORE: Mrs Carnell says, "Look at the recommendation". I am getting close, Chief Minister; just relax. The recommendation has the caveat "it is our view". That is okay. You will notice they are using "it is our view", meaning "it is our contention at this stage". It is hardly a very strong statement in terms of legal opinions. The caveat is:

Should the Bill be enacted, it would be open for an interested party to seek a Declaration, in the ACT Supreme Court or the Federal Court, that the Act is invalid on the grounds of inconsistency with a Federal award.

So what? That is a normal statement. It is always open to an interested party to seek such a declaration. Why not? Every time there is something that is not quite the way we want, we get a legal opinion; and we say, "Members, you cannot vote for this because of this legal opinion". We have to remember the separation of powers. There are important constitutional questions that we are dealing with.

It is important for us to be conscious of legal views - and I have no problem with legal views - but the court has the prerogative to make a decision; we have the prerogative to make laws. If the courts find that our laws are inconsistent in some way with our self-government Act and, therefore, we do not have the power to do something - and that is what this is about - then let them decide it; take it to court. But if we are always going to sit here and say, "We cannot do it because it might be inconsistent with the self-government Act", too bad.

Mrs Carnell: It costs a bomb.

MR MOORE: "It costs a bomb", says the Chief Minister. Yes, and it costs a bomb of time and recreational time and work value to take away people's holidays. They go on:

If the proposed Bill is not inconsistent with the applicable Federal awards it might ...

First of all, they say, "You might be taken to court. However, if it is not inconsistent, well it just might - we are not quite sure - be challenged". They go on:

be challenged on the basis that, as it is currently worded, it provides for a holiday and not a public holiday for the purposes of the Holidays Act 1958.

Well, let them challenge it. Mr Berry has put up, as I have gone through it, what I perceive to be a very simple and effective piece of legislation that sets out the schedule of awards in which this will apply. Clause 4 of the Bill states:

In any year, the first Monday in March shall be observed as a holiday in the Territory by employees whose terms and conditions of employment are governed by an award ...

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