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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (24 September) . . Page.. 3243 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

Mr Berry is arguing against himself. In one breath he is saying that it is the role of government to determine whether you get the money, whom you are talking about and what organisations are involved. In the next breath he is saying that the Government should not be able to determine what reasonable steps are. That just does not make sense. We are trying to come up with a motion that does make sense, that can be implemented and that sends a very strong message to organisations that we will supplement where it is appropriate, where we have worked with those organisations and where reasonable steps have been taken. I think that is a very strong message. Mr Berry said that it is the role of government to determine how this is done.

MR BERRY (Leader of the Opposition) (4.17): I seek leave to respond to Mrs Carnell. She has jumped the gun and got it wrong.

Leave granted.

MR BERRY: In many ways this might be described as a play on words, but the fact of the matter is that what you have attempted to do with your amendment is to change the expression of view by this Assembly, that is:

... this Assembly believes that organisations should not be penalised by the implementation of a common rule award for these workers ...

The Chief Minister is changing that to say:

... the Government should take all reasonable steps to ensure that organisations are not unduly disadvantaged ...

The second part of the second paragraph contains these words:

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

If I wanted to express that in terms which required the Government to do everything in accordance with a great deal of detail, I would have expressed it in that way. What I am saying to you is that you have your hands on the levers. We express a view that you should supplement organisations to enable them to meet their award obligations. In circumstances where you do not and it comes to our attention that you have mucked it up again, we will give you the business over it. It is as simple as that. We are saying to you that you should supplement them generally. If you do not, you are going to have to explain yourself. I oppose the amendment. I think it tries to cover up an expression of view from this Assembly which ought not to be covered up.

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