Mr STIRLING - 2000-10-18
Despite stating that public servants have nothing to worry about over their six weeks annual leave you have refused to enshrine it in their award. Your own Commissioner for Public Employment is reported to have said: ‘It’s inevitable that Territory public servants will eventually lose a component of their six weeks leave and that the current entitlement dated back to the 1950s to cover Territory factors such as isolation, climate and the higher Territory cost of living’.
I ask what has changed and why won’t you put this six weeks leave into the award?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, every question today, every question from the opposition that I have been asked today, has been based on a false premise and an assertion, and an assertion that something awful is going to happen or has happened. They have been shown in many of those cases to be incorrect and I will demonstrate that again today.
The Labor Party have, in relation to this matter, been scaremongering in a conspiracy with the unions to frighten public servants into the belief that they are going to lose two weeks of their recreation leave - not the case. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition in asking his question demonstrated that these arrangements have been in place for many years – no one has lost their holidays. What is the issue? Now, in terms of some changes, and he partly answered the question himself in relation to the potential for employees to determine their future as regards recreational leave, and that in fact has happened with the Power and Water Authority who chose to trade off some of their recreation leave for other benefits. Any employee or group of employees have the opportunity to do that if they wish. What the Commissioner was referring to was that that ability does exist with employees if they want. From the point of view of the government, it cannot arbitrarily remove two weeks leave.
Now, let’s get the facts in relation to the industrial relations action that this really pertains to. It goes back to 1997 when the federal government introduced legislation to have minimum leave entitlements enshrined in federal legislation and, as a consequence …
Ms Martin: Yes, Peter Reith.
Mr REED: … public servants and other people who are listening, having had them mislead by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I am sure that people will want to hear the facts in terms of the answer and I ask the members opposite to be a little bit more thoughtful of those listening to the broadcast who might want to hear the truth, something that you are not familiar with.
In terms of the Australian industrial relations action regarding this matter, it was the AIRC which was only prepared to include four weeks under the simplification process. So they only wanted the four weeks in the national award for one very good reason. That is, it is a simplification and a concreting of minimum leave entitlements, leaving …
Mr Stirling: But not six weeks. You do not want to concrete for six weeks.
Mr REED: You do not understand the principle of it.
Mr Stirling: The public servants do. 15 000 public servants understand.
Mr REED: It is national minimum leave entitlements that the federal government wants enshrined in federal legislation.
Ms Martin: So we have to be the same as everyone else? Stand up for the Territory, Mike.
Mr SPEAKER: Order, order! The Leader of the Opposition.
Mr REED: Given that the AIRC were only prepared to include four weeks, then that is what has occurred. Now you might not like it and you might like to try to misrepresent that, but the fact is that the other two weeks are enshrined in the conditions of service of public servants of the Northern Territory. It has never been a problem in the past in terms of being at risk and nothing has changed …
Ms Martin: Four weeks has never been in the award before.
A member: It used to be three weeks.
Mr SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr REED: … in that regard. Just try and control your mouth a bit. Just see for five minutes if you can shut up so people listening can hear the facts. Have a bit of respect for those listening to the broadcast.
So, in terms of the federal government’s legislation and the national requirement to have minimum leave entitlements of four weeks enshrined in legislation, that is what has occurred and that is all the AIRC wanted enshrined in the legislation. So those conditions have been met. In terms of the other two weeks, if the government tried to move arbitrarily to alter those arrangements we would immediately end up in breach of EBA agreements that have been entered into with employees and I expect that we would be in front of the Industrial Relations Commission very smartly if we attempted to tinker with those leave entitlements without the consent of employees. And that is the only way that those arrangements can be made.
However, the concreting fact in all of this is this, and this cements the muckraking that the Labor Party and the unions are working to create unnecessary concern. They did it in the public sector by trying to tell the business community that the Territory economy was in recession. They were deceitful in that regard and their deceitfulness has been exposed in that regard by Access Economics.
Their deceitfulness in this regard is exposed by the lack of action of the union, because if the union and the Labor Party were sincere and really believed that the additional two weeks recreation leave was at risk then the unions would have lodged an application with the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to have that matter heard and they would have lodged that particular application and expressed that particular concern. The fact that they have not taken that action clearly demonstrates the hollowness of this particular issue, clearly demonstrates that the Labor Party is just trying to create unnecessary concern, asserting to something that is not going to happen, is going to happen, and using what is a very emotive and a very important issue to their own political gain. They have been again exposed in that regard here with this.
If you are serious about this, get the unions to lodge an application to have the particular matter heard. The fact is they have just been talking about it, creating unnecessary concern now for a few months, have not taken any action or the only action that could overcome their problem or have their problem heard in the arena that can hear it. That exposes the hollowness of this assertion and the fact that they are misleading Territory public servants quite deliberately.
I ask what has changed and why won’t you put this six weeks leave into the award?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, every question today, every question from the opposition that I have been asked today, has been based on a false premise and an assertion, and an assertion that something awful is going to happen or has happened. They have been shown in many of those cases to be incorrect and I will demonstrate that again today.
The Labor Party have, in relation to this matter, been scaremongering in a conspiracy with the unions to frighten public servants into the belief that they are going to lose two weeks of their recreation leave - not the case. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition in asking his question demonstrated that these arrangements have been in place for many years – no one has lost their holidays. What is the issue? Now, in terms of some changes, and he partly answered the question himself in relation to the potential for employees to determine their future as regards recreational leave, and that in fact has happened with the Power and Water Authority who chose to trade off some of their recreation leave for other benefits. Any employee or group of employees have the opportunity to do that if they wish. What the Commissioner was referring to was that that ability does exist with employees if they want. From the point of view of the government, it cannot arbitrarily remove two weeks leave.
Now, let’s get the facts in relation to the industrial relations action that this really pertains to. It goes back to 1997 when the federal government introduced legislation to have minimum leave entitlements enshrined in federal legislation and, as a consequence …
Ms Martin: Yes, Peter Reith.
Mr REED: … public servants and other people who are listening, having had them mislead by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I am sure that people will want to hear the facts in terms of the answer and I ask the members opposite to be a little bit more thoughtful of those listening to the broadcast who might want to hear the truth, something that you are not familiar with.
In terms of the Australian industrial relations action regarding this matter, it was the AIRC which was only prepared to include four weeks under the simplification process. So they only wanted the four weeks in the national award for one very good reason. That is, it is a simplification and a concreting of minimum leave entitlements, leaving …
Mr Stirling: But not six weeks. You do not want to concrete for six weeks.
Mr REED: You do not understand the principle of it.
Mr Stirling: The public servants do. 15 000 public servants understand.
Mr REED: It is national minimum leave entitlements that the federal government wants enshrined in federal legislation.
Ms Martin: So we have to be the same as everyone else? Stand up for the Territory, Mike.
Mr SPEAKER: Order, order! The Leader of the Opposition.
Mr REED: Given that the AIRC were only prepared to include four weeks, then that is what has occurred. Now you might not like it and you might like to try to misrepresent that, but the fact is that the other two weeks are enshrined in the conditions of service of public servants of the Northern Territory. It has never been a problem in the past in terms of being at risk and nothing has changed …
Ms Martin: Four weeks has never been in the award before.
A member: It used to be three weeks.
Mr SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr REED: … in that regard. Just try and control your mouth a bit. Just see for five minutes if you can shut up so people listening can hear the facts. Have a bit of respect for those listening to the broadcast.
So, in terms of the federal government’s legislation and the national requirement to have minimum leave entitlements of four weeks enshrined in legislation, that is what has occurred and that is all the AIRC wanted enshrined in the legislation. So those conditions have been met. In terms of the other two weeks, if the government tried to move arbitrarily to alter those arrangements we would immediately end up in breach of EBA agreements that have been entered into with employees and I expect that we would be in front of the Industrial Relations Commission very smartly if we attempted to tinker with those leave entitlements without the consent of employees. And that is the only way that those arrangements can be made.
However, the concreting fact in all of this is this, and this cements the muckraking that the Labor Party and the unions are working to create unnecessary concern. They did it in the public sector by trying to tell the business community that the Territory economy was in recession. They were deceitful in that regard and their deceitfulness has been exposed in that regard by Access Economics.
Their deceitfulness in this regard is exposed by the lack of action of the union, because if the union and the Labor Party were sincere and really believed that the additional two weeks recreation leave was at risk then the unions would have lodged an application with the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to have that matter heard and they would have lodged that particular application and expressed that particular concern. The fact that they have not taken that action clearly demonstrates the hollowness of this particular issue, clearly demonstrates that the Labor Party is just trying to create unnecessary concern, asserting to something that is not going to happen, is going to happen, and using what is a very emotive and a very important issue to their own political gain. They have been again exposed in that regard here with this.
If you are serious about this, get the unions to lodge an application to have the particular matter heard. The fact is they have just been talking about it, creating unnecessary concern now for a few months, have not taken any action or the only action that could overcome their problem or have their problem heard in the arena that can hear it. That exposes the hollowness of this assertion and the fact that they are misleading Territory public servants quite deliberately.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016