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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1832 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

today, the aspects that this motion deals with will be addressed in the commission. But there is the option for this Assembly to resolve some of these issues today. That is the purpose of Mr Berry's disallowance motion. I hope that that answers Mr Rugendyke's first point. There is a dispute, but the progressing of the dispute is dependent on the outcome of the vote today.

Secondly, some members of staff will be disadvantaged and I would argue that some members of this place will be disadvantaged, because what the government is attempting to do through these proposed changes is to make individual members responsible as employers, rather than the territory.

Mr Rugendyke: I am happy about that. I will take responsibility for my staff.

MR CORBELL: Mr Rugendyke says that he is happy about that. First of all, Mr Rugendyke, let me make the point that you cannot actually be the employer. You cannot be; it is a nonsense. The territory is the employer and you are a delegate of the employer, the territory. You act on behalf of the territory, but you are not the employer. Mr Speaker, if Mr Rugendyke sincerely wants to be the employer, Mr Rugendyke will have to be happy to be personally responsible for, and therefore personally liable for, any claims made against the employer, such as some sort of injury that occurred at work. Mr Rugendyke, if a member of your staff suffers a permanent disability as the result of an accident at work, are you happy to be personally responsible for the costs associated with that?

Mr Rugendyke: I do not know whether that is the same issue.

MR CORBELL: It is exactly the same issue. The argument is that we will become the employers. If the argument is that you want to be the employer, you have to accept the full responsibilities of being the employer. The reality is that what the government is saying is a legal nonsense. We cannot be the employers. The territory is the employer. The territory is the body which pays our staff.

Mr Rugendyke: If I am a delegate and that is as close as I get, that is what I accept. Tell me why I should not accept being a delegate of the territory?

MR CORBELL: What the government is attempting to do, Mr Rugendyke, is to say that you are a little bit more than just a delegate. It is trying to shift the legal responsibility onto you, and that is not appropriate. Mr Speaker, it is wrong for the territory to attempt to make individual members the employers. We cannot be, nor should we be; the territory is the employer. It is wrong for the government to suggest that there is not a dispute, because there is one. The last point that I would like to raise relates to the issue of which award should be used. It is wrong of the government to argue that there should be a particular award set for determining the no-disadvantage test.

Mr Moore: He argued it.

MR CORBELL: Mr Berry has made the point that, if an award is to be used, it should be the journalists award. Mr Berry has argued that it should be the journalists award, whereas the government is claiming that it should be the clerks award. The point that

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