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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 8 Hansard (25 August) . . Page.. 2369 ..

MR SPEAKER: Do not debate the issue. Be careful, please.

MR BERRY: I only need to refer you to the explanatory memorandum which goes with the third-wave legislation. In schedule 6, paragraph 89A(2)(f), item 4 would remove long service leave from allowable award matters. You little disgrace!

MR OSBORNE (12.16): Mr Speaker, I intend to support this legislation, whether it is done today or next week. I understand that Mr Rugendyke has given agreement to Mr Berry to support it. I understand Ms Tucker is going to support it, and I think Mr Kaine will support it. Quite clearly, the legislation is going to get through, but I do think that Mr Humphries does have a point, in that there were a number of issues yesterday which the Labor Party and other members sought to have adjourned because they did not have enough time.

The Environment Protection (Amendment) Bill was perhaps a mistake of the Government. However, we were approached at around 10 o'clock and asked to adjourn the electricity Bill. We agreed to do that. I have had discussions with the industry. Employees claim to have found out about it only yesterday or today, so I think it is only fair that we give them another week. I think the result will be the same. I take on board what Mr Humphries had to say, and I will support an adjournment.

MR MOORE (Minister for Health and Community Care) (12.17): Mr Speaker, this is a continuing theme. We are bending over backwards to try to work with other members. This morning we intended to debate Mr Kaine's motion through. The Labor Party indicated that they had misunderstood. We said, "Okay, we will back off and allow the adjournment". Mr Berry claims that this is just a tactic. We are trying to work with the Labor Party. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition should look at who is managing these negotiations. That might be where the problem is. We would certainly welcome a change there. We are working constantly to try to make the business work. We are prepared to be flexible about that, and we are requesting the same flexibility.

MS TUCKER (12.18): I have also reconsidered my position on this. My initial response was similar to Mr Berry's, in that it is just an extremely offensive stunt. If Mr Smyth is not aware of what Mr Reith's agenda is, the rest of us are. The working conditions for women, mainly migrant women, who work in the cleaning industry are enough to make anyone passionate and very angry. That is why I responded in the way I did this morning. But listening to Mr Humphries, I acknowledge the points that he has raised.

Mr Osborne made the statement that it was not correct that we forced an adjournment of the environment legislation. We were told - and I showed it to Mr Humphries in black and white - that it was down for Thursday in draft government business. We assumed that it would be debated on Thursday. That may have been a misunderstanding, so that legislation should not be included in the list. It was on that timing that our office worked with the Parliamentary Counsel on our amendments to that Bill. I will not accept that that we were somehow at fault in adjourning that Bill.

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