Page 2979 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 16 October 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
majority of the committee recommends that the ACT government requests that the commonwealth government ensure comprehensive data covering the details of AWAs that do not meet the safety net requirements are publicly disclosed by the Workplace Authority. As Mrs Burke says, it is noted earlier in the report that the Workplace Authority has just publicly reported on agreements submitted since 7 May 2007. So here we are in October—talk about wake up Australia—and the ACT is suddenly saying this is something that ought to be done. Well, I watch television occasionally and catch a news bulletin. I have heard about this for weeks. But the ACT has just suddenly come up with this bright idea. I would urge that Mrs Burke maybe should call Mr Hockey and let him know about this, because I am sure he will be absolutely poised waiting to hear this recommendation!
There is more in the dissenting report in terms of Mrs Burke’s comments. She has highlighted the recommendation about people with disabilities, and I am keen to see people with disabilities given every opportunity we can give them, because the cards are stacked against them. But she does point out that the recommendations are outside the terms of reference of the committee, and I must say that was my initial reaction in terms of the recommendation regarding regulation of the mortgage industry. I think there is a need for regulation probably in terms of mortgage and finance brokers, but I am struggling to understand how that ties in with the industrial relations legislation and its impact on working families in the ACT. Talk about a long bow. Why do we not review the tax system as well? Why do we not review the health system, and on and on we go? Everything in the entire country that comes out of the commonwealth impacts on people in Australia? But I would have thought this committee could find enough work—if it were serious about the assignment—in coming up with some recommendations that were novel and clever and relevant to the contemporary industrial relations issue in this nation.
It is proposed that the ACT government should establish an independent workplace advocate—yet another body—similar to that in the Northern Territory. Again it has been cited by Mrs Burke as another recommendation that has clearly been overtaken by events. The office of the Northern Territory Workplace Advocate was established in May 2006, and, as of January this year, it has received a grand total of 225 inquiries averaging one a day. So we are going to put some highly paid official—no doubt, with staff and offices and facilities—to pick up one problem a day when we have already got federal authorities looking at this stuff. There are industrial organisations, both employer and employee, who are equipped to deal with these issues, but the ACT government wants to move into this area where there is no need. If I may, with respect to Mrs Burke, quote from her comments again. She says:
The Workplace Advocate would be a toothless tiger competing with a Commonwealth agency whether the Workplace Authority or Fair Work Australia with actual powers. It would be a waste of taxpayer’s time and money setting it up given that it would have to refer issues to the Workplace Authority.
Finally, we get this other interesting recommendation that the ACT government should develop strategies to ensure that the tenders and subcontracting arrangements are assessed on the provision of fair pay and conditions of employment and do not compete on the basis of labour costs. As Mrs Burke has pointed out again, this
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .