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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1830 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

an authority to delegate. There is not a power for a delegate to delegate-the Latin principle delegatus non potest delegare-but I am not delegating from anybody else. It is my own authority under the legislation. I am delegating to individual members of the Assembly the power to negotiate on their behalf, and my advice says that I am entitled to do that . If Mr Berry believes that I have not got that authority, he could advance some further evidence of that fact, but he has not done so.

Mr Speaker, this is a half-baked proposal which will leave members of this Assembly badly exposed and will dramatically reduce their capacity to negotiate outcomes in their own cases which suit their workplaces. I would strongly urge members not to support this proposal. Mr Berry has not flagged his arguments very clearly today. In fact, he has not made it very explicit what he is arguing in this matter. I think that, frankly, it goes back to Mr Berry's view that there ought to be a collectivist approach in these matters and it ought to be up to unions to be involved in these negotiations in all cases. I can only assume that that is what Mr Berry believes. I think that is inappropriate. I think members have to have the power to negotiate outcomes for their own officers, provided minimum standards are met. I believe that this instrument sets out those minimum standards. If Mr Berry believes a better standard applies, he should move an amendment to this determination, not seek to wipe it out altogether.

MR MOORE (Minister for Health, Housing and Community Services) (11.30): The Chief Minister indicated in his speech that he would take some advice on the impact on the journalists union. I have spoken to his adviser and my understanding of the issue is that the commission has flagged to the unions involved, including the journalists union, that enterprise bargaining is an appropriate way to consider the unions' concerns. That is the first part.

The second part, with regard to which award should have coverage, is that, of the 50 or so staff, about 17 are union members and the unions believe that they ought to be covered by the journalists award. That is yet to be proven in any way; the case has not been established. If Mr Berry happens to believe that the 17 members who are covered by unions should be covered by the journalists award, that is interesting and fine. What he is doing is saying that, for the minority of people who have this view and are covered by unions, there should be collective bargaining. That is what I am hearing from Mr Berry. I hope that explanation is adequate in terms of the advice I just received.

Mr Speaker, it seems to me that the more flexibility I have to be able to deal with my own staff in an effective way to deliver in the best way that I can as a member, which is, after all, what we are here to do, the more effectively I can deliver it, doing so with the normal and appropriate protections for staff that are still there. That is fundamental. The Chief Minister went through those protections. The staff are entitled to those normal protections. Nobody is debating that. That has not been changed. But the determination made by the Chief Minister that Mr Berry is trying to disallow does give us more flexibility in the way we deal with our staff, with the exception of that issue of the normal protection that any staff member is entitled to. Mr Speaker, this disallowance motion of Mr Berry's is ideological. It is actually about collective bargaining; it is not about anything else.

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