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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 547 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

Until the confederation's recent move, the union picnic day was for other workers. The standard is, very clearly, 12. Why are you not supporting the standard? Because this gives you the opportunity to get stuck into the workers. This is a mean-spirited move and sets a dreadful precedent for those other workers in this Territory who receive 12 public holidays. It sends a message that the twelfth day is up for grabs. Mrs Carnell referred to cost savings. What have we got - 17,000 ACT public servants? Just imagine, 17,000 days. What is that worth in cost savings? They could try to knock off the holiday at Christmas. You could unload a few workers if you could get 17,000 days back.

What sort of logic are we dealing with here? What Mrs Carnell and her Government are supporting is the continuance of something that is inequitable and will cause disharmony out there in the community; disharmony and dispute will be caused because of the inequality which is being created by this mean-spirited move. There is no question about that. Indeed, even in the private sector there will be those in the workplace who will be able to keep their union picnic day because they will be able to hang onto it through their EBAs and by other means because they are industrially strong. But, Mrs Carnell, you seem happy with the industrially weak copping it in the neck. Women in the work force, in particular, will be affected by this mean-spirited move by the employers. That is how these things usually begin. You start with the weak and then try to creep up on the stronger. Nobody supports this move to tear away this important condition in the ACT, except a few Liberals and a few employer representatives who want to make a name for themselves by ripping off workers.

The other thing I want to raise is the advice which has been placed before the Assembly by the Government. Mr Moore has dealt with that in detail, and I do not need to go into all of those details again. But advice is just that, advice, and it is a matter for employers to consider what they want to do. If they want to pour a whole heap of money into court challenges, that is up to them. This also sends a clear message to the Industrial Relations Commission that this Government means business about this extra holiday and the commission ought to pay due regard to those decisions of the Full Bench which recognise the rights of State and Territory governments to make these sorts of holidays available to workers. No arguments have been put in this place that support the removal of this holiday.

We do not very often get the opportunity in this chamber to do things which make an overwhelming number of people in the community happy. On this occasion, I have heard numbers of between 50,000 and 70,000 workers who might be affected. I would be glad to take the opportunity to make 50,000 or 70,000 workers in the Territory happy rather than make a few mean-spirited politicians and a few people who represent bosses happy, because they have ripped this condition off. Mr Speaker, this is a holiday that has been in place in the ACT for 58 years. It is one that is a tradition in the private sector of the Territory and one that ought to be preserved. I urge all members of this Assembly to support this legislation.

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