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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 7 Hansard (23 September) . . Page.. 2111 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

It is inappropriate for this Assembly to oppose paragraph (4) in particular. If you have made up your mind on paragraph (3) there is not much I can do to change it, but, in relation to paragraph (4), there are substantial arguments against losing that one.

I was extremely disappointed to see Mrs Carnell's amendment passed. I did not have the opportunity to respond to Mr Osborne's comments because he did not make many in relation to it; but, now that he has made comments in relation to paragraph (4) of Mr Hargreaves's motion, the point has to be made. Undue and unfair pressure has been adopted by this Government in the industrial process. This particular part of the motion should be supported in all fairness.

MR OSBORNE: I seek leave to speak again, Mr Speaker.

Leave granted.

MR OSBORNE: I think I need to clarify my position on this because, quite clearly, Mr Berry has not interpreted it correctly. Mr Speaker, when I received the phone calls from those people the attitude out there in the community was that the Government was going to privatise the runs regardless. What I have said and what a majority of members in this place have said - Mr Kaine and I - is go back and negotiate; go back and speak to the union. That is our preferred option. We do not want you to privatise the runs. We would prefer that you negotiated and sorted something out with them. Mr Speaker, I thought I made that very clear. It is very hard to get through Mr Berry's thick skull. I need to make it very clear that I would like the Government to continue to negotiate with the union. I understand that they are very close. There is one issue that needs to be resolved. I think the majority of us made that point.

By allowing the Government to continue looking at their options, given what has been said in this place and given what we will say outside, I think the message will be there that the onus is on the two parties to sort it out and then we will consider our options in a month's time. Quite clearly, I needed to clarify what I had said, given the way Mr Berry attempted to distort my motives on this issue.

MR QUINLAN (4.44): For the record, I believe that voting down the important and essential element of this motion while supporting the more general statements regarding public transport is hypocrisy in the extreme, and I am sure it will cut no ice with the union, the drivers or their families.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General, Minister for Justice and Community Safety and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) (4.44): Speaking briefly to my motion, I want to draw members' attention to the problem with paragraph (3). Paragraph (3) of the motion is a requirement. This is not an advisory motion; this is a requirement on the Government, and I quote, "to adopt proper industrial relations philosophies". That sounds to me like saying, "You should think in a certain way". The problem with that is that, if we pass this

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