Page 2213 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 28 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
leaving”—which was referred to a comment I made. I have asked people to check Hansard of 29 June. You will find out that it was Ms Gallagher who said that. I never said “masses of people are leaving in droves” either. That also was a comment attributed to Ms Gallagher. Perhaps it is time you stopped playing politics and got your facts right. (Second speaking period taken.) Again, it is just this silly propensity by the executive. A lot of money is apportioned to the executive; we need to be giving the best of ourselves to one another and to the Canberra community.
Let us look at some other aspects of the executive, in particular the behaviour of our Chief Minister in relation to workers. This was a thing that really struck me. The Chief Minister pretends to be on the side of workers when it comes to attacking the opposition. The opposition has been totally supportive of health workers—namely, the nursing staff, as I have said. I have never denigrated or devalued nurses, doctors or medical health professionals at all, and the government knows that. We have simply drawn attention to the problems of government management—or mismanagement. When it comes to monstering the workforce and taking away conditions and penalties, the Chief Minister takes the biscuit.
Let me give a couple of examples for starters. In workplace negotiations in this Assembly, the Chief Minister has abolished overtime for members’ staff, which impacts heavily on senior advisers; he is replacing it with a minuscule yearly allowance for all, regardless of whether they do any overtime or not. Is this not destroying penalties and conditions—which is what he and his ilk, federal Labor and the unions, are always trying to ascribe to WorkChoices? There is no choice for MLAs’ staff; they are not allowed to apply for AWAs to get fair compensation for overtime worked.
And it is not only that MLAs’ staff are required to do overtime—particularly important given the dearth of resources available to the opposition. Now, I understand, the Chief Minister wants to limit the amount of TOIL—time off in lieu—that can be accumulated. First he demanded that only 140 hours could be accumulated. Now he wants every 70 hours to be accumulated. This means that, after 70 hours, there is to be no recognition of work done in excess of this, either in cash or in kind. Where is the justice for workers in this treatment? This is how Mr Stanhope, head of the executive, is treating his own staff as well as that of the opposition. Far from being a friend of the workers, as one might be led to think, Mr Stanhope behaves more like some tyrannical, feudal overlord.
Then there is the small matter of the Hume mill, where up to 120 workers need the ACT government to make some worthwhile contribution alongside the Howard government’s unconditional $4 million and the New South Wales government’s timber contract for two years. Where is the Chief Minister’s support for workers there? He can waste millions of dollars on vanity projects like an arboretum that we do not need, and certainly that we do not need to be built in the time of a great drought; a million-dollar colossus to bestride the entrance Canberra; or a bus way to save three minutes travel time. And the list goes on. Mr Stanhope suddenly wants to cheesepare. He says that he can only loan the Hume mill a measly $350,000 in cash and the same in a waiver of taxes and charges because he must be responsible about ACT taxpayer money. If the mill can be got back on its feet, it will be able to pay
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .