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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (24 September) . . Page.. 3242 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

You really have to divide this second part of the motion. One part is an expression of a belief by this Assembly, and the other is a call for action by this Assembly. You have to separate it in those terms. What Mrs Carnell sets out to do with her amendment is to change the expression of belief by this Assembly to a softened expression of action by the Assembly - that is to say, the Government should take all reasonable steps to ensure the organisation is not unduly disadvantaged. I do not think you should amend it in that way, because I think it makes it - - -

Mr Moore: Paragraph (1) is the expression of belief. Paragraph (2) is the action. She is amending paragraph (2).

MR BERRY: No. Paragraph (2), Mr Moore, has two parts to it. One is an expression of belief by the Assembly. The second part states:

... the government should supplement organisations to enable them to meet their award obligations.

The Government is going to have to make decisions in relation to that, and it is going to be held responsible for it. That is the role of government. It is not an overarching direction to the Government that they shall do it for all organisations for everything. The Government is going to have to take a view about funding levels and services. It is as simple as that. But they should supplement organisations to enable them to meet their award obligations.

Mrs Carnell: In all circumstances and totally?

MR BERRY: That is a question for government. The amendment that Mrs Carnell has moved in place of the expression of belief by this Assembly merely allows the Government, as she says, to "take all reasonable steps" - reasonable, in the Government's view - "to ensure that organisations are not unduly disadvantaged". I oppose that because I think it changes the meaning of the motion somewhat. I do not want to go on and on about it. In my closing remarks I will come back to some of the issues which have been raised. I think that the amendment by the Government should be opposed. I think the expression of belief by this Assembly is an important part of the motion.

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister and Minister for Health and Community Care) (4.15), by leave: Mr Berry, in his opposition to my amendment, said in one breath that it is the role of government to determine how we implement this. The motion states:

... this Assembly believes that organisations should not be penalised by the implementation of a common rule law ...

Mr Berry, does that mean that they should never be penalised or that we should supplement all organisations in all situations? Mr Berry said, "That is up to government". Yes, I agree that it is up to government. If that is the case, how can Mr Berry then oppose a situation where the Government will take all reasonable steps to ensure that nobody is unduly disadvantaged?

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