Book 8 - Parliament of Victoria

PUBLIC HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT BILL 2011
1710 COUNCIL Thursday, 2 June 2011
option, because it has not been my personal experience
that that flexibility is what is desired. The flexibility
that people have spoken to me about relates to full days
in different localities. I acknowledge I have not spoken
to every council that is affected by this legislation, but a
good number of the nine that have part-shire
arrangements are within my electorate. I have had quite
a bit to do with them on this issue over the period since
the 2008 legislation. My question was about what the
government’s expectation is of the likely take-up of the
part-day arrangements. That is all I was hoping to find
an answer to.
Hon. R. A. DALLA-RIVA (Minister for
Employment and Industrial Relations) — The advice I
have had in the meantime is that there were
11 half-days across eight shires prior to the 2008
amendments, as was thought. In the context of
Ms Pulford’s discussion, I think it is important to note
that this is about choice, and it will be up to the shires to
make that choice. If you look at clause 1 again, you will
see it sets out the main purpose of the bill, which is to
amend the public holiday laws:
to provide that non-metropolitan Councils may nominate
alternative public holiday arrangements in lieu of Melbourne
Cup Day.
If they do not wish to take up the option, they will
continue to have Melbourne Cup Day as the holiday,
but if they do wish to take it up, they can take a full-day
holiday for an entire shire or two half-days for a part
shire. That is all we are doing. As I said, the changes
were intended to allow the councils to have that choice.
As to the take-up rate, I guess that will be subject to this
information getting out, as was raised by Ms Pennicuik.
The minister has written to the councils advising them
that this legislation is before the chamber, and
obviously we need to go through that process. Members
need to understand, though, that what we are doing is
clearly laid out in clause 1. Other than that, the public
holiday will remain the Melbourne Cup holiday.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! I am happy
to call Mr Davis, but I ask that we avoid the throwing
of petrol on the debate to the extent that was done a
moment ago by members in the chamber. I am not
directing that entirely at Mr Davis, but I just ask that we
maintain some decorum in our discussion on the
balance of clause 1.
Mr P. DAVIS (Eastern Victoria) — Thank you,
Deputy President, I hear your advice. I am not sure that
I am going to adjust what I intended to say in response
to Mr Somyurek, who made accusations about me
which I resent — deeply. I have been in this place for a
very long time and at no time — —
Mr Somyurek — What were the accusations? Just
tell me. If they were unfair, I will withdraw them. Tell
us the accusations.
Mr P. DAVIS — You were suggesting that the
government and I were trying to shut down scrutiny on
this bill.
Mr Somyurek — Come on! You said it!
Mr P. DAVIS — That is what you suggested. I did
not say that. What I said in the chamber during the
debate — —
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! That is
enough from both members. This is the committee
stage of a bill in which the house goes through the
detail of the clauses in the legislation. If members
wanted to pursue this sort of debate, they should have
done so during the second-reading stage. I will not
accept two members throwing accusations at one
another across the chamber. They will contribute to the
debate through the Chair.
Mr P. DAVIS — I am delighted to comment,
through the Chair, on the fact that the learned member
of the opposition Mr Somyurek is suggesting that the
government and I are endeavouring to shut down
scrutiny on this bill. The reality is that we have been in
committee on this bill for nearly an hour now, and the
government has no intention of going anywhere. We
will stay today and tonight and tomorrow morning if
required. It is up to the opposition. We are happy for the
opposition to ask any questions and make any point it
likes in the process; however, as you quite rightly
pointed out, Deputy President, it should be relevant to
the bill and the clause we are considering.
We are considering clause 1 of a bill which amends the
Public Holidays Act 1993 and does not relate to
legislation that was before this house in 2008. The law
changed in 2008. It seems to me that opposition
members are fixated on some sort of analysis of what
it — I will try to be polite about this — made a bit of a
mess of, in more colloquial terms.
The opposition, when in government, did make a mess
of it in 2008. We had an extensive debate in 2008. At
the time we received powerful representations from
rural communities against the changes. As a result of
that we committed at the time to repeal this bill, as I
have stated before. I know the committee is no place for
tedious repetition, but I have to respond at this point to
Mr Somyurek and Ms Pulford. The issue is this: