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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 11 Hansard (20 October) . . Page.. 3396 ..

Ms Carnell: It is pretty important.

MR BERRY: Yes. Wait a minute. Incidentally, it is one of the additional duties they received with school-based management which was not included in the payments that they received as a result of the last EBA, and it is one of the issues that featured in the survey of a bursar's duties which gave rise to the recent improvements to their wages and working conditions.

Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, it is clear that there were different standards applied to the bursars than were applied to other ACT government employees, and that is why I have moved this amendment. It is to make it clear that all we require is the same standard. That is exactly the point when the Government took action against these bursars. It is no good coming in here and saying, "Yes, but they walked out". Of course they walked out. Their pay was going to be stopped when there was industrial action. They would not go to work when there was no pay, but they did not go on strike. They were threatened with having their wages cut if they continued with industrial action. They took a decision on the industrial action and their wages were cut. (Extension of time granted)

In the other cases I am sure that all of the members were aware, as all of the employers were aware, of the implications of the Federal industrial relations law, but a pragmatic approach - a sensible pragmatic approach, I suggest to you - was taken because if you were to have stopped the payments in relation to these workers it is possible you would have ended up with a more serious confrontation which might have affected services to the community. So, in that sense, it is sensible to try to work your way around these things, as far as you can. But if you use the argument that we cannot do this in the case of the bursars because it is contrary to the Federal Industrial Relations Act, then the same argument applies in the case of the rest of them. What I am saying is that this has to be about fairness. Okay, the Federal law gives us a pragmatic way out of this - - -

Mr Humphries: He is praising it now. He is praising this Federal law because it is pragmatic.

MR BERRY: No, no. I think it is an outrageous piece of law. It is an outrageous piece of law. Even you have recognised that because you have not acted in a black and white way about it, and that is fair enough because this law enables employers to do this. It also sets a pattern of intervention from the Federal Minister, if he so chooses, or from other parties. You may have read that. I think it was in applications to the court, section 187 AC. An application may be made to the court for orders in relation to contraventions of those earlier matters. It refers to a person who had an interest in the matter, the Minister, or any other person prescribed by the regulations.

If the bursars are paid is any Minister, any one amongst these employers here, going to intervene and say they should not have been paid? No, of course they are not. Are any of the bursars going to kick up a fuss about it and go to the court and ask for an order to do something about it? No, of course they are not. Neither are any of the other ACT government employees. Is Peter Reith going to go to the courts and say, "Bloody Bill Stefaniak, he's paying those poor bursars. I think I'll nail him."? No, he is not.

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