Page 2670 - Week 10 - Thursday, 15 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
To call the improvement of workers' wages and conditions utopianism is an absolute joke. It is an attempt by Mr Stevenson to create disquiet and discomfort in the community about something that is not wrong. It is a perfectly ordinary thing for governments to do. It is a perfectly ordinary thing for people generally to do. What is not acceptable is to create the impression that something is wrong when people move to improve the lot of others. If Mr Stevenson used more of his time improving the lot of other people instead of trying to create disquiet and discontent in the community about matters with which government is concerned, we would be better off. I am sure that he relies for his electoral support on creating that sort of disquiet and unrest.
I point out to Mr Stevenson, too, that it is not only Australia that is concerned about the improvement of wages and working conditions. On this particular issue I refer to my introductory speech, where I dealt with International Labour Organisation Convention 156. Mr Stevenson has never been a supporter of international conventions; he describes them as big government, I think, and tries to create the impression that internationally people are doing things to others which are wrong. In the area of wages and working conditions, ILO convention 156 makes it very clear. I am a supporter of this convention, and I suspect that all Australians would be. Clause 1 of article 3 states:
With a view to creating effective equality of opportunity and treatment for men and women workers, each member shall make it an aim of national policy to enable persons with family responsibilities who are engaged or wish to engage in employment to exercise their right to do so without being subject to discrimination and, to the extent possible, without conflict between their employment and family responsibilities.
I am proud to support that. Mr Stevenson obviously does not. Article 7 is even more specific. It reads:
All measures compatible with national conditions and possibilities, including measures in the field of vocational guidance and training, shall be taken to enable workers with family responsibilities to become and remain integrated in the labour force, as well as to re-enter the labour force after an absence due to those responsibilities.
Mr Stevenson would have pregnant women sacked, as would the Liberals.
Mr Cornwell: What nonsense!
Mrs Carnell: I bet Lou has never sacked anyone who is pregnant, and I certainly have not.
MR BERRY: You are opposing the introduction of this legislation, and it aims to prevent women from being sacked. Article 8 states:
Family responsibilities shall not, as such, constitute a valid reason for termination of employment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .