Page 3822 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 19 October 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is my belief that the passage of this legislation will spell the beginning of the end of this vibrant community that we enjoy here in Canberra. As Mr Stanhope pointed out to us yesterday, the devil of the legislation is inevitably in the detail. The devil of this legislation is in the secondary effects—the opportunity costs associated with employment in the new Howard-designed labour market.
For a start, we will see the destruction of family life and relationship building. Why? In an environment where the difference between a job and an unemployment queue is based solely on the comparison between you and your competitors, everything which does not contribute to employment becomes a liability, including family time, voluntary contribution to your community—like helping out the local junior sporting team, your school tuck shop, Meals on Wheels; like tutoring people in the English language. We all know how vital this work is. And I could list many more examples.
Communities are built on the goodwill and the involvement of their citizens. This is one of the fundamental reasons why Canberra is held in such high esteem, with over 42 per cent of its population volunteering on a weekly basis. Without this time and ability to make this contribution, the concept of community will wither here in Canberra. John Howard has turned the tables on volunteerism in this country. Instead of protecting the right of Australians to make their contribution and enjoy friendships which come with volunteering and build valuable social capital, Mr Howard has made employment a voluntary activity, at least in terms of their conditions.
These reforms are bad. They are bad for all Australians; it is as simple as that. They are bad for the economy; they will kill off any concept of community; they will destroy families; they will undermine the health of ordinary Australians. They are so fundamentally bad that the advertising firms, with over $100 million of taxpayers’ money at their disposal, have been forced to trick workers into appearing in the ads. They are so terrible that government has constricted the inquiry to just two weeks, barely enough time to read the legislation itself. The question has to be asked: why are the government’s reforms so bad and so unpopular? Why is this?
The purpose of government is to construct a society that allows each individual to prosper. We know the ACT’s Canberra plan in fact states that vision. Unfortunately, the Howard government concentrates too heavily on the concept of the individual and, as such, shrinks its responsibility to manage and develop prosperity in the community.
I implore our federal government to realise the harm in what they are doing and abandon their IR reform agenda so that community spirit can continue to soar and people can truly adhere to the adage “work to live”, not the other way around. I also implore every member of this house to urge the federal government not to continue with this very damaging IR reform package.
MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (10.55): There is a sense of deja vu with this matter that has been put forward by Ms Porter. I suspect I will be having that feeling again later as we continue to discuss this issue of industrial relations. There were a number of points that Ms Porter made. This angst to try to pass negative judgment on a very progressive plan to improve Australia’s industrial relations system before the full detail has been contemplated, before it has been given a chance to work, is regrettable.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .