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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3322 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

But let me make it quite clear that the Government does not oppose the implementation of a common rule for the social and community services award.

But that is exactly what this Government has done in this "notice of appearance to object". They have said, "If you implement the award, these organisations will be threatened. Their viability will be threatened". Why would you say that if you supported the introduction of the award? I can understand why you would say it if you objected to the introduction of the award, but why would you say it if you supported it? Why would you cast into doubt the viability of organisations if you supported the introduction of the award? Why would you undermine your own support? The answer is that that is not what you are trying to do at all. What you are trying to do is undermine the introduction of a common rule award. That is what Mr Kaine was saying yesterday.

The Chief Minister said, "We have never opposed the SACS award". But the "notice of appearance to object" undermines the application for a common rule. That is opposition; that is not support, Chief Minister. You said yesterday, "We have never opposed it". I am sorry, but this notice says that you do oppose it. It is not a technicality. You are placing in doubt, you are undermining by inference, the need to implement a common rule award. You are lodging the objection because you know that you do not want to fund these organisations. That is what the notice is there for.

That is why we believe the Chief Minister and the Minister for Industrial Relations have deliberately misled the house. This "notice of appearance to object" is dated 3 September this year and the motion was debated yesterday, 24 September. They knew that the department had acted. They knew that they had put in the "notice of appearance to object" on the ground that if the award was implemented it would threaten the viability of organisations. It is not acceptable for a Minister or the Chief Minister in this place to say one thing in a debate yesterday and say another thing today. It is very clear grounds for a censure.

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister) (4.04): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to speak again.

Leave granted.

MRS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, I think it is really important to work out exactly what those opposite are saying. We did not say yesterday that we supported the application. We said that we did not either support or oppose. That is exactly what we said, and that will continue to be our position. I am advised that there are only two positions you can take in the commission, and they are to support or to oppose. We did not say that we supported it. We said that we did not support or oppose. It is my advice that the commission instructed the ACT to appear. The ACT is not going forward - - -

Mr Corbell: Why did you not say, "We support."?

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