Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 11 Hansard (20 October) . . Page.. 3406 ..
MR BERRY (continuing):
As to the Government's approach in relation to the Reith laws, you could argue that they were in contravention of them; but I think that the laws have been put together in such a way as to allow some pragmatism in the assessment of them. That has been shown by the way that the Government handles its own affairs. I do not like the fact that people are being forced to take industrial action because it is not a very pleasant thing to get involved in. It is disturbing for individuals and their families and it is disturbing for those management people who have to deal with it as well. The industrial action is happening because of government policy, because the Government is not providing for a pay rise and so on and so forth. That is what flowed into the area of the bursars' dispute.
As I said, I do not think that Mr Rugendyke was listening to this debate at all. I will not try to give him some circuitous advising on how he can circumvent the Reith laws. That is completely unnecessary. Mine is a simple argument: Treat the bursars in the same way as you treated the rest. That is all I want. The Government in its wisdom has treated a bunch of ACT government employees in one way. Just treat the bursars in the same way and pay them the money that they have lost. Mr Rugendyke's contribution to the debate was extremely unhelpful. He failed to listen to the debate in respect of the issues of fairness and equity, which was disappointing given his stand in relation to these matters.
Mr Osborne and several government members raised the issue of the relationship between this matter and the Financial Management Act. There is no relationship. If the provision of the Financial Management Act which dealt with the Chief Minister's failure to seek an appropriation for the massive spending on Bruce said that it was not an offence to do so, we would have been snookered. There would not have been much we could have done because it would have been very clear that it was never intended that there be any problem with breaching the law. This law says that contravention of a couple of subsections is not an offence.
Of course, there is another relationship that does not stick in that it is quite open for the Chief Minister to come in here and get an appropriation of funding for Bruce Stadium, but she chose not to do it. She chose to avoid the law. In the case of the Federal industrial relations law, the Government has chosen to find a way of managing it, shall I put it. It is an unfair law. The difference between it and the Financial Management Act is that the Financial Management Act is a fair law, based on hundreds of years of tradition.
Mr Moore: But you cannot make a decision on whether something is fair or unfair; the law is the law.
MR BERRY
: How the four Ministers sitting opposite can rise in this debate and treat these lowly paid workers in such a tawdry way is beyond me. It is being mean spirited to the worst extent. I am absolutely surprised at you, Mr Moore. I know that the metamorphosis was complete some time ago and the colours have all changed and all of that, but I did not expect you to stand up in here and say that it is okay to treat a group of government employees in a different way and the bursars got what they deserved.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .