Page 3331 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 24 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, the question, of course, is to what extent our local economy, our local government, is meeting the challenge which I have described. This is a challenge every bit as real for each State and Territory government in this country as it is for the national Government. The task of making workplaces responsive to market pressures and not just to entrenched and outdated industrial precedents is a job very much for the second tier of government; indeed, it is arguably more for that tier of government than for any other tier.
What is the ACT Government doing? Here is the challenge we have set. How does the ACT Government meet that very great challenge? First of all, it does not meet it particularly consistently. In some areas we see realistic attempts in the correct spirit at change. In other areas we see absolutely no commitment, even in terms of rhetoric, to the sort of change which has to take place to make our region and indeed our national economy the sort that it must be to survive in the future. The ACT Government, Madam Speaker, I would argue, on this vital question, has no direction. It has no guts to tackle the difficult questions. It has no sensitivity to the real needs of people. It has, worst of all, no sense of priority. It demonstrates ineptitude across all areas of government.
Let us ask ourselves: Where is the ACT Labor Government's agenda for change? Where is its reform program? When has it come to this Assembly, for example, and said, "This is what we intend to do to make the ACT region an efficient place within the whole of the Australian economy"? I cannot recall it having done that. I can recall adherence to some rhetoric about this; but, particularly in the area of industrial relations, we have seen an absolute commitment on the part of the ACT Government to keeping things exactly the way they are. "We do not want change", they say; "We want an industrial scene which reserves and preserves the rights of those currently working in it. We do not want to see any change that might affect the performance of those industries, particularly if it affects the entrenched power of trade unions in our society. No, no, no".
In industrial relations and other areas of government we have seen little, if any, change at all. We have not seen even the commitment to change. On planning matters, this Government is jealous of the initiatives and the drive of private developers, people who want to do things better. It has no vision or policy for the development of Canberra in place of that. On social issues, it kowtows to the demands of minority groups on issues such as abortion, marijuana and pornography. On environment issues, it is most - - -
Mr Connolly: Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order on the issue of relevance. This is a debate on industrial relations and micro-economic reform. I ask you to draw the speaker's attention to the relevant standing order.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Humphries, I am sure you took account of that.
MR HUMPHRIES: Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is a MPI about micro-economic reform and, in particular, industrial relations within that. I would argue that there was some relevance there. Nonetheless, let us turn to some area where the Government's performance in industrial relations has been extremely poor.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .