Book 8 - Parliament of Victoria

PUBLIC HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT BILL 2011
1692 COUNCIL Thursday, 2 June 2011
However, they normally assume within these EBAs
that it is a full-day public holiday. It is a single day. If
the government’s amendment goes through, I anticipate
that there is going to be confusion and uncertainty
about whether, by virtue of the enterprise agreement or
through the operation of the national employment
standards, employees are entitled to two half-days, one
full day or one full day plus one half-day.
We know about this confusion. I certainly know about
this confusion, having worked in industrial relations for
many years prior to coming to this place. I spent a lot of
time in the industrial relations commission arguing
about enterprise agreements and the details and
interpretation thereof. We know about this confusion
because this confusion and uncertainty existed in the
past. We had disputes with employers over whether the
act or the enterprise agreement provisions took
precedence until we, the previous Labor government,
tidied it up by providing very clear options within the
act.
Mr Finn — Is that what you did?
Ms DARVENIZA — That is exactly what we did,
Mr Finn. We tidied up the existing confusion. I do not
want to see that confusion reintroduced. My concern
is — and it is a very genuine concern — that with the
introduction of this bill that confusion will come back
into play.
The government should be putting the interests of
workers and their families who live in regional Victoria
first. It should not be stripping away their right to a full
day’s public holiday for Melbourne Cup or a full day’s
public holiday for a local event. I believe the
government’s amendments are unnecessary. If in a
locality there are two events worth celebrating, then it is
possible that under the Public Holidays Act 1993 both
events can now be celebrated without stripping away
any existing entitlements. That flexibility already exists.
I have said it before, but I will say it again: the
government keeps on talking about flexibility and
saying that is why it is stripping away this entitlement
of a full day’s public holiday, yet that flexibility already
exists within the act.
Currently employees are entitled to either Melbourne
Cup Day or another full day for a local event, and this
should remain. The minister has the right under
section 7 of the existing act, as Mr Somyurek pointed
out in his contribution, to appoint an extra day or a
half-day as a public holiday in a particular locality for a
particular local government or shire. If the minister
believes an extra half-day public holiday should be
given, then that can be done under the current act
without stripping away the rights of an employee to
have a full-day public holiday for Melbourne Cup Day
or a full-day public holiday for an equivalent local
event. The flexibility is there.
It is a mean-spirited bill. It is unnecessary, and I am
very concerned that it is going to create confusion for
both workers and employers in the future.
Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) — Having
listened to Mr Somyurek and to Ms Darveniza over this
last period of time, it occurs to me that if that is the best
they can come up with, if that is the general tone of the
discussions they held at the ALP conference a couple of
weeks ago, no wonder everybody left, because I was
tempted to do that as well. Is it any wonder they could
not get a quorum? I have never heard such claptrap in
all my life — or since the last time they got up, anyway.
Mr Somyurek — You hear it at caucus every week.
Mr FINN — You hear it, Mr Somyurek.
Mr Somyurek is a very honest and honourable man. He
has just told us he hears it in caucus every week, and
that is the truth. I have never been in caucus, and it has
to be said it is very unlikely that I ever will be, but if
Mr Somyurek says that he hears that sort of claptrap in
caucus every week, then I will not argue with him. I
will take his word for it — —
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Ms Pennicuik) —
Order! Mr Finn will come to order. Mr Leane on a
point of order.
Mr Leane — On a point of order, Acting President,
the matter I raise is relevance. I am loath to move a
point of order on relevance because with Mr Finn you
could constantly be doing so during every one of his
speeches. They all seem to be the same, so maybe I will
raise an overriding point of order about relevance.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Ms Pennicuik) —
Order! There is no point of order. Mr Finn had just
commenced his contribution, although I would remind
Mr Finn to keep to the bill in his contribution to the
debate.
Mr FINN — Absolutely, Acting President. I would
not dream of departing from the text of the bill at any
time.
In this day and age, when there are a lot of shysters
about and a lot of people who do not stick to their
beliefs, it is a wonderful thing to see the shoppies in
here today doing the bidding of those outside the
chamber. It is great to see them in here. We know that
when the shoppies do a deal, they stick with it. When