Page 440 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 8 March 2006

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

I share the views that Mrs Dunne put forward in terms of the motivation behind this. It is regrettable that this is brought forward in some opportunistic way to take advantage of or—dare I use the term—exploit the circumstance faced by a number of immigrant workers in the city. The opposition makes it absolutely and unambiguously clear that we will not support people who breach the awards. I never have in my career in industrial organisations. I am certainly not about to suggest to my colleagues that we in any way condone this. The record, therefore, will clearly show that those who choose to breach award conditions or the laws of the territory on employment cannot expect the ACT opposition to demonstrate any sympathy.

I am very pleased that our federal colleagues, as I previewed, have got a series of measures in place to deal with the alleged breaches in the territory and that there will be a range of legal measures employed both through federal government powers and, I believe, some civil litigations which are flowing. So be it; these things happen. I accept that people in some instances make innocent errors in relation to award breaches. But my experience in dealing with federal inspectors is that innocent errors do not normally result in prosecutions and it is only when there is a belief that there has been deliberate intent to exploit a situation that one can expect to land oneself in court. Without prejudging the circumstances of each of those prosecutions, we can take confidence that those responsible for enforcing award observance are taking these matters seriously and are doing their job.

Therefore, it begs the question why we need to change anything. You can always do better; I recognise that. There are breaches that occur. But it is imperative that in the system one agency federally have primary responsibility, as is the case.

Question put:

That Mrs Dunne’s amendments be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Ayes 6

Noes 9

Mrs Burke

Mr Stefaniak

Mr Berry

Ms MacDonald

Mrs Dunne

Mr Corbell

Ms Porter

Mr Mulcahy

Dr Foskey

Mr Quinlan

Mr Pratt

Mr Gentleman

Mr Stanhope

Mr Smyth

Mr Hargreaves

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

MR QUINLAN (Molonglo—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development and Business, Minister for Tourism, Minister for Sport and Recreation, and Minister for Racing and Gaming) (11.43): In his earlier remarks, Mr Mulcahy referred to some commitment that I made to the Assembly to report figures quarterly. I would like that to be backed up because I do not think that is the case. I am sure Mr Mulcahy will go and

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