Page 308 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 7 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR SPEAKER: Was it the industrial relations commission?
Mr Stefaniak: In Sydney, yes.
MR SPEAKER: In any event, it is before a judicial body and under consideration. I think it would be inappropriate for us to venture into that.
Mr Stefaniak: I have provided the Clerk with the solicitor’s telephone number too.
MR SPEAKER: So for those reasons I have ruled it out.
MR GENTLEMAN (Brindabella) (4.38): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move:
That this Assembly:
(1) notes the impact of new federal workplace laws on Canberra employees;
(2) condemns Thiess’ dismissal of first aid officer Steve Willets, a Canberra resident; and
(3) calls on the Chief Minister to write to the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner to investigate Thiess for possible breaches of the building and construction national code.
Over the past 100 years, working Australians have benefited from a fair industrial relations regime, enabling them to share in economic prosperity and the knowledge that their employment was protected by an award system and access to unfair dismissal laws. However, changes to federal laws have seen the erosion of workplace conditions. Under the new industrial relations regime, there is no recourse against unfair dismissal for workers in a business with fewer than 100 employees and those on three-month probationary contracts. In just over 10 months since its introduction, many Australian workers have lost their job or have been forced to sign an unfair Australian workplace agreement, AWA, which has eroded their fundamental working conditions and pay.
The Liberal Party in the ACT has sought to constantly vilify both the Labor government and the unions for daring to criticise the worst aspects of this dreadful legislation. In a press release by Senator Humphries, issued on 20 October 2006, he stated that there were significant protections in place for employees under the new workplace laws. However, it is now clear that, at Thiess, federal legislation has seen significant protections being taken away from employees. To illustrate this point, the new legislation has allowed multinational construction giant Thiess to sack one of its workers, Steve Willets.
Mrs Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have just ruled that the matters relating to the employee who was sacked and the dispute between that employee and Thiess were sub judice. Mr Gentleman has already, within two minutes of starting, started to wander into the sacking of that young man.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .