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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 6 Hansard (2 September) . . Page.. 1791 ..

Ms Carnell: No, sorry; that is not true.

MR BERRY: It is true. The agreement that is in place now goes on to say:

the parties agree to develop and implement a streamlined process for voluntary redundancies during the life of the agreement. The process of the RRR Award shall apply. Should the processes as outlined at clause 8 of the Award be reached then further action would require the agreement of the parties.

That is the position and that is why you cannot now say, "You, you, you, you and you, out". We want to make sure that those same conditions obtain. So, let us get that clear.

I will go on to another issue. You said that you do not want to direct the agencies. Well, you do not want to direct agencies on this issue, but you have already directed them generally. I have tabled a document which is headed "Essential Values, Practices and Terms and Conditions of Employment". At the bottom, these words appear:

Note: This document was prepared by Chief Minister's Department.

On page 2, section 11 refers to redeployment and redundancy and it says this:

Full application of the RRR Award to apply.

That means including clause 8 without the section which you promised. It continues:

Award is to be varied as part of the Award Simplification exercise to expunge `non-allowable' matters which should leave scope for agencies to negotiate revised arrangements covering such matters as the retention period -

the retention period is mentioned in clause 8 -

and consultation requirements.

Consultation requirements such as the provision set down in Part J of the principles and objectives which are in the current agreement. Ms Carnell, do not give us any more of those weasel words. The fact of the matter is that you were trying to dodge your election commitment to the unions. There is no question about that. No more weasel words, please. The fact is that you cannot do anything to employees now because there is an agreement in place, and if you put this agreement in place you still will not be able to.

Let us deal with another fantasy that you put up in this place, the issue of unions and their control over the situation. The "parties" to an EBA, under the terms already in the agreements, does not necessarily mean it has to be a union. It could be an individual in an AWA. I am opposed to AWAs. I think they are an outrageous piece of

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