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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 544 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Mr Speaker, I will close by making a simple analogy. Can members of this place imagine what it would be like if Mrs Carnell brought in a Bill to improve the economic position of pharmacies or pharmacists in this Territory? What would those opposite be saying about Mrs Carnell in these circumstances - about her feathering the nests of pharmacies, of doing deals for her mates, of making arrangements to assist people who voted for her at the election? That is what they would be saying. We know that is what they would be saying. It is exactly what you would be saying. Is this any different? Is it any different because a larger number of people are involved? I do not think that it is. Mr Berry ought to ask himself whether this kind of deal-making is appropriate and whether he is not doing enormous damage to a large number of businesses in this Territory for the sake of doing deals for his mates.

MR BERRY (12.28), in reply: Mr Speaker, the first thing I will deal with is the references to the umpire which have been made by the Government. The first point I will raise is some comment from the Full Bench in their decision which first considered this issue as a result of a move by the Victorian Government to rip holidays off workers. The Full Bench of the commission said:

We also accept that the declaration of public holidays, by whatever legal instrument, is the prerogative of the various Governments.

Mr Kaine, Mr Humphries and Mrs Carnell, we stand by the umpire's decision. In the Australian Industrial Relations Commission's commentary on safety net public holidays it specifically named 10 days, including Easter Saturday, and provided one other day as specified, according to a State, Territory, locality or some other basis such as an award picnic day. The commission stated that a State or Territory may add to but not subtract from that number. The State and Territory governments may add to the safety net by whatever dimension they wish to add. There is no restriction on it. Mrs Carnell has minimum confused with maximum. That is the problem here.

The umpire has clearly made out the case in respect of these matters. Indeed, this is a position which has also been adopted by the employers. Mr Monagle, in his contribution to proceedings before Commissioner Larkin, said in relation to the Government's powers, that the Full Bench should recognise clearly the role of governments to proclaim additional days. Mr Monagle agrees with this approach as well. The Government's arguments are starting to fall apart pretty badly because it is clear that everybody recognises the right of State and Territory governments to provide extra holidays. That is a clear understanding of the commission's decision.

The next thing I want to deal with is Mrs Carnell's claims about consultation. Did the employers consult with workers and their unions before they took this to the Industrial Relations Commission and talk to them about what they might do in the context of their award provisions? No, they did not. Did the employers offer an attractive EBA

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