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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1836 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

are not comfortable with what is happening and do not understand it, they should be supporting Mr Berry's motion because it is Mr Humphries who is initiating this change. The consultant that we listened to was very concerned about the clerks award being specified here. We might like to see another instrument. I am not saying that there should never be an instrument. This is not about ideology; it is about trying to get a considered position and I am not happy with what is happening. I have not heard Mr Humphries put up a good argument against those concerns about the clerks award.

If members want to apply the precautionary principle to this issue as they do not fully understand it, they should definitely support Mr Berry's disallowance motion. That does not mean that another instrument cannot be put up. What Mr Rugendyke and Mr Kaine are doing today by supporting Mr Humphries in this regard and opposing Mr Berry is they are sealing it. They are saying that they agree that Mr Humphries is right. I just do not think that they have the knowledge to do that. They have not put that knowledge to me in this debate. I have not heard either of them say that they have a full understanding of what is going on. I think it is reasonable to support Mr Berry's disallowance motion today.

Mr Kaine: And then what happens?

MS TUCKER: Let us see what Mr Humphries wants to do. He can re-word-

Mr Kaine: You are urging me to support Mr Berry's motion, but I want to know what will happen if I do. If you cannot answer that question, how can you urge me to support it.

MS TUCKER: Mr Kaine asks what would happen if he supported Mr Berry's disallowance motion. Support for Mr Berry's disallowance motion would mean that this instrument would not get up. That would mean that Mr Humphries would have to think again about the reference to the clerks award, because that is the main reason I am not supporting it. I am supporting Mr Berry because real concerns have been expressed by several people as well as the consultant that was talking to the people in the Assembly who were interested in understanding the issue that it was strange to have this reference to the clerks award and that under the no-disadvantage test, which is what we are talking about, this reference to the clerks award is a problem. If you are concerned about your staff, you should be concerned about that.

MR HUMPHRIES (Chief Minister, Minister for Community Affairs and Treasurer): I seek leave to speak again in this matter, Mr Speaker, as further information about this matter has been brought to my attention by my advisers.

Mr Berry: No. You have had your go. You can speak under standing order 47 if you think you have been misinterpreted; otherwise, you should sit down.

MR HUMPHRIES: No, it is additional information.

MR SPEAKER: Is leave granted?

Mr Berry: No. You lied about things that I said, Gary, and I am not going to give you another chance to do it.

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