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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1841 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

between the parties by a mechanism which we agree to abide with generally throughout the territory.

We accept that the Workplace Relations Act, like it or lump it, applies generally throughout the territory and its dispute-settling processes, award-making processes and certified agreement processes apply generally throughout the territory. The main thrust of my argument here is about why we are interfering in this process. We should not be. It can be easily sorted out by a dispute which has already been lodged in the commission and will ultimately lead to some sort of outcome in relation to those conditions which are set by the minister and imposed on us as members.

So far as negotiations between members and their staff are concerned, I cannot see a reason for change. There are some things about the arrangements that I do not like, but I cannot see how these conditions will improve that situation. The view that I am getting from unions and from staff who are au fait with this matter and concerned about these issues, and they have been around for a long time, is that this is not the way forward. There has been some discussions with a consultant. (Extension of time granted.)

Mr Speaker, this issue is one that ought to be settled by the commission. I hope that I am not misquoting the situation, but it seems to me that there is a move here to try to circumvent the process. There is a possibility that that is in play, but it is hard to make it out. If we are trying to make decisions in this place that are almost certain to fall foul of something going on in the commission, it is hard to imagine that there is not some strategy behind it. I cannot pick it out. That is my paranoia, I suppose, in relation to industrial relations, but I think we should stay out of it.

I agree with Mr Kaine, although Mr Kaine was looking at it from a different direction. We should not play with this matter. It should be settled in the Industrial Relations Commission, because that is where the dispute lies. The result will eventually flow through to us as conditions which are set out under the Legislative Assembly (Members' Staff) Act and we will have to abide by the limits which are placed on us. I cannot see any reason to change that. That is why I urge members to support the motion that I have put forward

I think I have clarified everything that members have raised and expressed concern about. I think that exhausts my list. No, I should deal with one other issue that was raised. Somebody opposite said something about the number of people who are covered by the MEAA award. They said 17 people or something like that were covered. A number of people are covered by the clerks award. There are probably some people who think that they are not in the system at all. But we were told about one person who was covered by the clerks award, which I found interesting. All of those things are a bit irrelevant anyway because, if we want to take over the role of dealing with industrial issues, we should build ourselves an industrial relations commission to do it for us.

I was involved in industrial relations for a big chunk of my life, but that was while ago. I do not pretend to be carrying with me the expertise that I had in 1989. Things have changed. I do not think anybody else here could claim to have been any better than I have been in that respect.

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