Page 435 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 8 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The ACT has a role in lobbying the federal government, and we should be requesting DIMIA to uphold the immigration act. However, there are problems in how DIMIA uphold the act. If they do not take a proactive approach in monitoring workplaces and if they rely on workers themselves to report complaints, they are not going to receive very many because migrant workers are not going to report their bosses if it jeopardises their employment and thus their working visas. But there are measures the ACT government could take to encourage compliance with not only legal requirements but also ethical work practices.
I was going to move a couple of amendments to draw out the ACT government’s role. The first was to call on the ACT government to take measures to ensure that all private businesses involved in the ACT government’s skilled and business migration program provide appropriate pay and conditions to their migrant workers. The second was to ask the government to report back on this by September this year. I have decided not to move those amendments. I have been told that the government is not going to support them. In the interests of time, I have decided not to put them. Nonetheless, I have made the point that there are things the ACT government can do to ensure that all private businesses involved in its own program provide the appropriate pay and conditions. This might involve doing checks on their private partners’ history with migrant workers when they sign up together; or, once the private partners receive migrant workers, taking steps to ensure that the workers have appropriate pay and conditions.
All too often, motions are put by Labor backbenchers that request the ACT government to lobby the federal government for something but, too often, we do not know whether the ACT government does this after the Assembly has approved the government’s own motion. It is really important that we see some follow-up, and it is very important to the faith of our electors in the community that they see rhetoric followed by action. That was the main reason why I was going to put my amendments. Nonetheless, with those important quibbles and concerns that we do not look at this issue simplistically, I will be supporting Mr Gentleman’s motion today.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (11.20): Mr Gentleman raises exceedingly important issues about skill shortages in Australia but he does it, I suspect, not because he is concerned about skill shortages but because he would like to take opportunities to do what is Mr Gentleman’s strong suit, which is to bollocks the federal government at every opportunity. Mr Gentleman shows that he is little more than the glove puppet from Centenary House by the nature of the motions that he moves in this place almost every private members day. When Mr Gentleman starts talking seriously about skill shortages and comes up with solutions rather than the things that he has said today, I will start to take Mr Gentleman more seriously.
Mr Mulcahy: He would get a gold star from George.
MRS DUNNE: He would get a gold star from George, but that is about as much as he will get in this place.
While much of the sentiment that is expressed in here is appropriate and, as Mr Mulcahy has said, should receive bipartisan support, the motivation behind this is, as usual, quite venal. Mr Gentleman has used this motion basically as an attempt to run the issues that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .