Page 651 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 28 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
On radio last night while I was driving home from this place I heard a lawyer explaining that he had been approached by many employers as to how they might now let go their workers under the new regime whereby they could, in fact, dismiss their workers because there was no protection for them as to unfair dismissal. A particular incident that seemed to disturb this lawyer was one with regard to a man or woman who, according to the employer, had taken too much time off work and therefore they would like to see how they might be able to let him or her go, sack him or her in other words. Apparently it transpired that this person had been taking time off work to care for a sick relative. But, notwithstanding that, they were actually going to let this person go now that they could, they were going to sack this person because he or she had been taking time off work to care for a sick relative.
We have just heard from Mrs Burke that Mr Smyth is taking time off work this week to be with his wife and his new child. We wish him and his wife well and we are very pleased that there has been a safe birth and it has been a happy occasion for that family. We are very glad that paternity leave is still part of the set of conditions that we have, otherwise perhaps the opposition might have been considering whether to let Mr Brendan Smyth go, given that he is not attending to his work this week. Fortunately, he is protected under the legislation at the moment and he can have paternity leave, and we are very pleased that he can. But there are many workers that are going to suffer under this new legislation. I am very pleased that we are going to have the opportunity to be available in the ACT to examine those cases as they come before us, but I am very sad that this day has arrived.
MRS BURKE (Molonglo) (10.59): I rise today to express some concern as to the way in which the select committee has elected to conclude the interim report into working families in the ACT. The concern is not that some form of comprehensive research is not undertaken in relation to the effects—if there are to be any significant effects—on the changes to federal legislation that should in time see Canberrans entering into more flexible working arrangements. In fact I have on many occasions, through this committee, said that I appreciate having a committee such as this.
I think Mr Gentleman misses the point. I believe we need to refocus this Assembly to what this committee was all about. Its purpose was to examine the effect on working families in relation to health costs, et cetera. That is referred to on page 2 of the report. Its purpose was to examine the effect; let us keep that in mind. The work of this committee is presumed to be of importance and, as such, I have no choice but to agree to the tabling of this interim report. As Mr Gentleman said, this is an update; this is a snapshot of where people are at at the moment. But most of it is conjecture; there is no empirical evidence; there are no tangible effects yet seen.
I must note the following to place in context, and for the public record, a position that will perhaps be overlooked in the committee’s work to scrutinise the effects of changes to the federal legislation in relation to workplace relations. In the nine years that federal Labor has been in opposition I do not believe it has come forward with any solutions to encourage people to, where they can, enter into meaningful employment and proceed towards furthering a productive life full of prospects that can never be fully realised if they are not in some form of employment. The federal government has recognised that support should always remain for the most vulnerable families. The government will, no
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .