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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 528 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

Note "in lieu by agreement between the parties". Picnic day can be retained. The award does not deny to the Labor Party, and its constituency in Canberra, picnic day. They can have it instead of Canberra Day if they can so negotiate with the employers. The effect is that picnic day is not really eliminated as a public holiday.

The point is, though, that they cannot have both. What Mr Berry is doing by putting this legislation forward is saying that they should have both; they should have Canberra Day, and then they should be able to have picnic day as well. In other words, he purports to give to ACT workers an additional holiday that no other unionist anywhere else in the country will have. In other words, Mr Berry would purport to discriminate in favour of trade unionists in Canberra. Of course, by doing that he is discriminating against the interests of the employers and the community that we live in. I do not think Mr Berry or the trade unions can have their cake and eat it too, because the award that I am referring to specifically states at section 19.3:

Where in a State, Territory or locality, public holidays are declared or prescribed on days other than those set out in 19.1 and 19.2 above, those days shall constitute additional holidays ...

That is exactly what Mr Berry is trying to do. He is trying to get an additional public holiday for his constituency. If Mr Berry cares to take a look around the Territory at the moment and look at the state of the economy, I cannot see how he could possibly expect this economy at the present time to pick up this additional financial burden, and that is what it is. The employers - small businesses, mostly - will have to pay penalty rates on yet another day. As I have pointed out, this is discriminatory in favour of only trade unionists in the ACT.

What Mr Berry is saying, in effect, is that Commissioner Larkin got it wrong. The employers have not said that Commissioner Larkin got it wrong. I have not heard any trade unionists yet say that Commissioner Larkin got it wrong. If they thought so - this is a draft order - why have they not appealed against the draft award? As far as I know, there is no action in progress to appeal. Mr Berry is wanting to slide a little Bill through the Assembly and give a benefit to the trade unionists in Canberra, his constituency. If I were him I would probably do the same thing, because it will guarantee his return to the Assembly in a year's time, will it not? But he is trying to do that at the expense of this community.

Mr Berry cannot say that the case before Commissioner Larkin was not properly argued. The case was put forward by the ACTU and the Trades and Labour Council. It is about an inch, or 21/2 centimetres, thick; it is pretty substantial material. He cannot say that Commissioner Larkin did not have the TLC's and the ACTU's case before her; she did. She understood exactly what they were saying. The transcript of the proceedings is not an insubstantial document either. But Mr Berry wants to throw away all that, all the work done by the umpire. The decision has not been taken lightly; it has been taken after having been argued at length. This morning, in a 30-, 35- or 40-minute debate with people who mostly would not know the basis of the arguments that were presented, Mr Berry wants us to agree to give trade unionists in Canberra another public holiday. I think Mr Berry needs to rethink his proposition.

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