Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 6 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 1833 ..
MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):
Tharwa residents, the Canberra Kennel Association, the ACT Companion Dog Club, the Canberra Dog Training Club, the Lanyon Bowl Landcare Group and the Tuggeranong Community Council were all consulted about those decisions, and I think they present the view that this is a fairly satisfactory outcome for what has always been a sensitive balance between amenity and environmental protection.
MR BERRY: Mr Speaker, my question is to Mr Kaine in his capacity as Minister for Urban Services. It relates to the introduction of Deane's buses into Canberra. Today's Canberra Times quotes a senior bureaucrat as saying that, in view of the vote by the Assembly yesterday, the department had no option but to agree to the trial and the trial will begin on Sunday - an Assembly-driven decision. Why is the department now choosing to abide by a decision of the Assembly when only last week it chose to ignore one? Do you agree with this bureaucrat's comments and are you concerned that your bureaucrats apparently do not recognise their obligations to consult with workers about changed arrangements in accordance with their enterprise bargaining agreement? On what basis does an Assembly resolution override an enterprise bargaining agreement?
MR KAINE: It is a very curious question, Mr Speaker, and I will do my best to answer it. First of all, there is nothing inherent in the permission to Deane's to pick up passengers on their runs into and out of Canberra that contravenes any agreement that the Government has entered into with anybody. There is no contravention of any agreement. I notice there was a letter to the editor of the Canberra Times this morning asserting that I had abrogated three agreements or something. I notice that the writer carefully did not say what they were. The fact is we have not abrogated any agreement.
Secondly, in terms of whether or not we comply with an Assembly resolution, I think Mr Berry is trying to say we would not abide by one last week but we did abide by one this week. The fact is that the resolution that was on the books last week in no way prohibited entering into this agreement with Deane's. Ms Horodny's own words in explanation of what her motion meant made it clear that it did not relate to this kind of incidental cross-border service. So, we were not abrogating an Assembly decision then and we do not intend to abrogate one now. The motion that was passed last night over - - -
Mr Whitecross: No, it was our motion. We all passed it.
MR KAINE: Mr Whitecross tried to deceive this house as to what its intention was. His smart tactic failed. It backfired on him because the Greens sensibly chose to negate it. That is another one that Mr Whitecross lost.
The facts in connection with the agreement with Deane's are that we did not abrogate either an agreement or a resolution of this Assembly. Secondly, we are not cancelling any ACTION bus services as a result of that agreement. In other words, ACTION employees are in no way disadvantaged by that agreement. Indeed, there is a potential for them to gain some advantage from it because the agreement gives us reciprocal rights to run
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .