Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 891 ..
MR MOORE (Minister for Health and Community Care) (10.20): Mr Berry did not deny that under his amendments the unions will have the power of veto, because they require agreement of the unions. The reason he has not denied that is that he cannot. It would mislead the Assembly if he said that they did not have the power of veto. They do, and that is the difficulty.
MR BERRY (10.21): You are equally misleading and dishonest. The clause states:
ACTEW may, on such terms as are agreed ...
It is not an obligation in relation to ACTEW either. I expect Mr Moore to be anti-union. That has been in his style ever since he came here. He does not want to see people represented by a collective, because it empowers them, notwithstanding all of the rhetoric he comes out with. I am happy to have the matter voted on, and I will just watch who votes which way. Then we will wait and see what happens with workers.
Mr Moore: It is a veto and you know it.
MR BERRY: If it is a veto, it is not such a bad thing anyway. If the conditions are poor - - -
MR SPEAKER: I thought you were happy to have the matter voted on.
Question put:
That the amendments (Mr Berry 's ) be agreed to.
The Assembly voted -
AYES, 8 NOES, 9 Mr Berry Ms Carnell Mr Corbell Mr Cornwell Mr Hargreaves Mr Hird Mr Osborne Mr Humphries Mr Quinlan Mr Kaine Mr Stanhope Mr Moore Ms Tucker Mr Rugendyke Mr Wood Mr Smyth Mr StefaniakQuestion so resolved in the negative.
Amendments negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .