Page 1527 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I could say a lot more, but I will not. I am sure my colleague Mr Mulcahy is going to reinforce many of the things that I have said. Mr Gentleman sits there grinning and smirking. It is quite embarrassing, Mr Gentleman, that you can sit there so boldly while we are struggling in the ACT to get our budget in order. We are putting the committee system here under great duress by insisting on pushing forward with this committee at this time. I ask the government to reconsider very carefully and I ask the Assembly for support for my motion today. Thank you.
MR GENTLEMAN (Brindabella) (10.57): I am pleased to see that Mrs Burke has seen fit to be present in the chamber this time. I can only hope that the reason we are debating this today and not during the last sitting period—that being that Mrs Burke was not in the chamber when her motion was due—is not work related, because I think the irony would bowl us over.
This is an important issue that needs and deserves rigorous debate, and it is this very debate and discussion that Mrs Burke’s motion attempts to stifle. The government will not be supporting Mrs Burke’s motion as written. I have circulated an amendment, which I now move:
Omit all words after “as follows:”, and substitute “in paragraph (3), omit ‘2006’, substitute ‘2007’”.
The importance of the Select Committee on Working Families in the ACT cannot be understated. This committee gives Canberrans the only opportunity to bring forward their concerns about WorkChoices and related legislation, as well as providing an avenue for possible change. The committee is the first of its type in the country: a no-holds-barred committee that does not seek to silence witnesses on the basis of limiting parameters. This committee has at its heart the best intentions for working families, and I define “family” in its broadest, most inclusive interpretation.
WorkChoices came into operation on 27 March, just a few weeks ago. Already we have heard of employers restructuring their businesses to entities of 100 and fewer so as to legally sack eight union members. We have heard about kitchen installers in Melbourne being sacked from full-time employment, only to be offered casual positions at a substantially lower rate. And here in our own region we have heard of the father of five Tim Bollard, sacked because he sustained an injury whilst on the job for his employer, Boral. Tim was reinstated by his employer, but not because of the generosity of Boral. No, Tim was able to continue to financially support his family because he camped out in the front of their yard, and as his colleagues, unaware of his sacking, turned up for their shifts they joined Tim in his contest for reinstatement.
Three days after this legislation came into operation, employers had already capitalised on the opportunities presented to them by the federal government. It is for this reason that I amend Mrs Burke’s motion and seek to extend the committee’s inquiry until August 2007, with a final report to the Assembly in the first sitting of that same month. Within three days of the legislation coming into effect, we had three clear cases of the economic impact of WorkChoices on working families, one of these cases involving a Canberra employer—three days and three clear cases of the social impact of WorkChoices.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .