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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 889 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

It would have to have agreement between ACTEW, the joint venture partner, say AGL, and the union. So there is a veto power there.

Mr Moore: Not just one union, all unions.

MR HUMPHRIES: Okay, unions. That makes it even more difficult. Presumably all the unions representing any employees in the organisation have to consent before there is any transfer of employees into or out of the joint venture. How do you expect the guarantees on employment to be honoured if there is no capacity to move those employees as is required by the needs of the joint venture, given the fact that terms and conditions of employment under awards and other entitlements, bargaining agreements are so on are guaranteed under these arrangements?

No employee loses his entitlement because he is now working for the joint venture as opposed to ACTEW. In fact, technically an employee still works for ACTEW all the time but is seconded to the partnership. If you cannot move the workers over to the partnership, then you have obviously lost the capacity to move the employees around in a way which serves the needs of the joint venture.

I am assuming a certain degree of lack of cooperation on the part of the unions concerned. I might be badmouthing them on that score, but the fact is that some of them have been hostile to this process so far. If, in the event of some kind of dispute or industrial confrontation, they decide to refuse to move employees between the two organisations, between the joint venture and ACTEW proper, the entire arrangement could fall down.

Mr Speaker, that would make it very hard to honour the promises about maintenance of employment levels in ACTEW. We take very seriously the promises we have made about being able to retain employment levels in ACTEW under this arrangement. We intend to keep them, but it is going to be very hard to do that if we are constrained in this way about where the employees actually work.

MR BERRY (10.17): That has to be seen as one of the most inaccurate Gary-s that he has tried for a long time.

Mr Moore: Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Not only have you warned Mr Berry, but you have made it clear before on many occasions that members are not to use that expression.

MR SPEAKER: We have already decided that "Gary-ing" is unparliamentary. Withdraw it please, Mr Berry.

MR BERRY: If I was Gary, I would withdraw it too.

MR SPEAKER: Withdraw it, I said.

Mr Moore: He has been warned, Mr Speaker. He wilfully disobeys the authority of the chair.

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