Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Wednesday, 31 March 2004) . . Page.. 1425 ..

competitive arrangement and how much taxpayers’ money is being wasted by this politically driven breach of the Trade Practices Act?

MR QUINLAN: I have to say that the way the question is framed is rather consistent with the questions Mrs Burke has asked in this place from time to time. The language used does you no credit. Why do we wish to ensure that we have a decent industrial relations regime applying in the ACT? It is because we believe that there has been, in recent years, abuse of employment practice.

Mrs Dunne: I rise on a point of order. Standing order 118(b) requires you to answer the question and not debate the subject. The question is: why have you done this?

MR SPEAKER: Resume your seat, Mrs Dunne, there is no point of order.

Mrs Dunne: I have not finished making my point of order, Mr Speaker, so I think that you can’t tell yet. The question was: why are you doing this, which is in breach of the Trade Practices Act?

MR SPEAKER: The Treasurer is answering the question and he is answering the question pursuant to standing order 118. He has confined his remarks to the subject matter.

MR QUINLAN: If I might respond to the point of order, Mr Speaker, I observe that the number of points of order being raised in recent times is bordering on the ridiculous. It has nothing to do with standing orders and more to do with, “Why don’t you give us the answer we would like to hear?”

To return to the offensively framed question, let me say that what this government is concerned about is the growing practice of employees being employed under contract when they are, in fact, effectively employees. This process of employing people behind the facade of a contract is exactly that: a facade. It is a device to reduce the conditions and the entitlements of people working at a reasonably low level in our community. It is our responsibility to protect against that cancer.

MRS BURKE: I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. Is this onerous industrial relations policy an example of Labor’s so-called commitment to making “the ACT the most small business-friendly location in Australia”—I quote from the white paper, page 23—or is it just another pay-off to your union masters who run the Labor Party and determine your preselection?

MR QUINLAN: Let me repeat what I have said before: that we need to protect against that. We are not going to be small business-friendly by allowing employees to be abused. Take, for example, Mrs Burke, the cleaning industry and some of the pernicious practices that existed there. Take, for example, some of the cleaning contractors in the ACT who had to be brought to heel because of their improper practices and their abuse of their employees—

Opposition members interjecting—

MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Smyth, I warn you.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .