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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 543 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

If the effect of section 5 of the Bill is to entitle an employee to whom it refers to be absent from work and to be in receipt of pay nevertheless it is likely, in my view, to be found to be inconsistent with the award as it purports to confer an entitlement which, under the award, can only be obtained by agreement. There is, therefore, contradictory provision made on the same topic.

What he is saying is that he finds that quite likely to be successfully challenged in the court.

Mr Berry made reference to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee did not have all the awards before it any more than these two legal people had them before them. They did not have those awards before them necessarily.

Mr Berry: They had the schedule in front of them.

MR HUMPHRIES: They had the schedule. That is only a list of the names of the awards, Mr Berry; that is not the awards themselves. Obviously, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has not looked at the awards. Some of those awards are referred to in these opinions. I think those opinions are of some weight. The point is that there is a real element of doubt.

Mr Speaker, one thing which I think was extremely regrettable in Mr Berry's remarks was the comment he made when Mrs Carnell said that many businesses are going to be inconvenienced. He said, "They should have thought about that". Mr Berry, for your information, when peak organisations go before industrial courts to argue these matters, they do not necessarily have every single employer or employer organisation standing behind them in each submission that they make; but as a result of the decisions of the Industrial Relations Commission there is an effect on every employer. Every employer who employs employees in this category was affected by that decision. To prejudice them because you have brought legislation forward at late notice is absolutely reprehensible. I think you ought to think about apologising to those people whose position has been prejudiced in this way, in circumstances that they did not create. In most cases, they did not go to the commission to argue a case at all, but they have been affected prejudicially by this.

Mr Berry: There is no evidence that they went to the unions beforehand, either.

MR HUMPHRIES: They did not argue a case either way, Mr Berry; this is the point. They are simply employers who have to run a business on a day-to-day basis and whose main preoccupation is making their living and keeping their businesses going so that their employees have work. That is their primary objective. If industrial organisations representing them make representations on their behalf, you cannot tar those individual employers with the arguments used by those employer organisations. That is completely reprehensible.

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