Page 315 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 7 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
What we are finding here, and I think what is really the crux of Mr Gentleman’s motion, is that WorkChoices has changed the dynamic in these employment situations. It has given the employer the given power to terminate on the basis of failing to follow procedures, and the Office of Workplace Services does not accept jurisdiction in dealing with the fairness of such procedures. Of course, an independent court action could cost the worker quite a large amount to pursue. A worker could be sacked for not following due processes, yet the employer may also fail to pursue due processes, but there is no-one holding the employer to account.
The only body that could pursue the matter, it would seem, is the Australian Building and Construction Commission. The unions opposed its establishment, but it has been championed by Liberal Party politicians. I understand that Senator Humphries has been asked to pursue this matter—the one that we are not allowed to talk about—and to take it up with the ABCC. I would like to take this opportunity to ask Liberal opposition leader, Mr Stefaniak, to do the same thing.
My reading of the situation is that workers are losing out in workplace safety. I have no doubt that the opposition disagree with me but I would like to see them put their money where their mouth is and take up cases such as the one that we are not allowed to talk about. But perhaps, as this motion asks, the Chief Minister needs to write to the ABCC as well, just in case; but let us also concede that a letter from Mr Stefaniak might have more weight on this matter, and I urge him to write it.
MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra—Leader of the Opposition) (5.04): Since a lot of this matter is sub judice, I propose to move amendments that are pretty germane to the whole discussion. Government members may object to the first amendment on ideological grounds. In paragraph (1), after the words “notes the” I propose to insert the word “positive” in reference to the impact of new federal workplace laws on Canberra employees. My secondment amendment would omit Mr Gentleman’s paragraph (3)—
MR SPEAKER: Mr Stefaniak, would you care to wait until the amendment is circulated so that members can have a look at it?
MR STEFANIAK: Members may not have a particular problem with my proposed paragraph (3), which is quite practical.
MR SPEAKER: You can speak to the motion before the amendment is circulated.
MR STEFANIAK: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Whilst I appreciate Mr Gentleman’s point of view, the fundamental issue is the issue of safety in the workplace, especially safety on the building site. No-one in this Assembly would disagree that that is a paramount consideration. There are a number of issues that we should debate, and I will deal with paragraph (1) of Mr Gentleman’s motion shortly, but I will direct my comments principally to breaches and unsafe practices, which are important matters.
It is important that safety procedures be best practice, because if there are good safety policies in place everyone wins—workers, managers and shareholders. I do not want
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .