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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 2 Hansard (20 May) . . Page.. 437 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

Now there is a test case involving a union, an employer and an organisation representing employers. I think it is important to realise who the employer is. Mr Berry was very lavish in his comments about "the bosses". It is the Mirinjani Nursing Home. It is not exactly a huge corporate entity; it is a nursing home run by the Uniting Church.

Mr Berry demanded that the Government intervene and involve themselves in the case. That was right at the beginning. We refused, because in our view - and I am sure it is the view of just about every person in Canberra bar Mr Berry - that due process should be followed and the case should be allowed to run its course. We said then that we would abide by the umpire's decision, and we will do so. A judge of the Federal Court, in a decision handed down earlier this month, found that the employers were required to pay workers for the union picnic day. Fine. I went out and said, as I said I would, "The umpire has decided, and this is the way it should be". But the Chamber of Commerce and Industry indicated that they would appeal the judge's decision to the Full Bench of the Federal Court. They have done that today. That is a course of action that is entirely within the right of the Chamber of Commerce, as it would be entirely within the right of any person under our legal system.

When I learnt of the chamber's approach, my reaction was exactly the same as when I heard of the first court decision - that we will abide by the umpire's decision, whatever it is. That, to my way of thinking, is a logical and fair approach and, I hope, an approach that any government would take in a matter such as this. But, no, Mr Berry has again said that he wants the Government to intervene in this matter - in other words, to attempt to involve itself in a court action and to argue against the right of an organisation to appeal a decision to a court. Why? It appears that money is no object to Mr Berry. Mr Berry did not speak about what this might cost the ACT taxpayer. I do not think Mr Berry really cares. Yet again, I am forced to remind the ALP that the next time they come into this place they should remember that it is not their money that they are throwing about; it is someone else's. It is the ACT taxpayers'.

We should not be spending taxpayers' money to defend something that is an issue for the Trades and Labour Council, if that is what they choose for it to be. We know that. I only wish that Mr Berry and those opposite would start understanding that the money that we determine to spend in this place is not ours. I am sure that, if I asked him right now what he thinks it would cost, he would not know. Mr Berry, what would this cost taxpayers? How much will this cost, Mr Berry? Do you have any idea?

Mr Berry: Would it cost as much as the Bruce Stadium?

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hird): Order! Remarks will be directed to the Chair.

MS CARNELL: That really shows it. Mr Berry is bringing forward to this place a motion which has a very definite cost to the ACT taxpayer, and he has no idea what it would cost. When the Government brings forward a proposal to this place - Mr Berry mentioned Bruce Stadium - the dollars are on the table. We stand for election. Everyone can determine whether they like it or they do not. We know what we are committing to. Mr Berry does not have a clue here. It is straight ideology.

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