Page 2980 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 16 October 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
recommendation is not soundly based, as it is based largely on the More work, less choice report, which was, in fact, based on interviews with 14 employees and a small businessman who had never tendered for a government contract in the ACT. The report offers no evidence that ACT government tenderers and subcontractors do not offer fair pay and conditions or that government tenderers and contractors are decided on the basis of labour costs.
There is this extraordinary notion that every employer out there is trying to rip off their workers. Everyone I ever speak to in business tells me that the biggest problem is that they cannot get people; this is the biggest single problem that people face in this country. So, here we are going into this whole process of recommendations as though there is some massive exploitation going on when, in fact, it is very much a case of employees picking and choosing. They are in a position now that is without precedence in the history of this country. I understand the unions are struggling for relevance, because people realise themselves that they can very often name a pretty substantial price, which will be accepted because of demand. I think that the point is completely lost in terms of the overall recommendations of this committee.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I must question the balance in this report. The only employer representatives who appeared before the committee were the Norris Cleaning Company and the ACT Region Chamber of Commerce. It hardly surprises me that most people thought that this was a monumental waste of time and money, and I am embarrassed to see it tabled in the Assembly.
MS PORTER (Ginninderra) (5.45): While the committee began its inquiry looking into a broad range of issues impacting on working families in the ACT, it was WorkChoices that generated the greatest interest and responses from those who made submissions and those who appeared before the committee. The committee was not able to analyse all aspects of the complex legislation, but concentrated on key areas of legislation that were brought to the committee’s attention. It was these issues that the committee considered to be having the greatest impact on low-skilled, low-paid workers and their families in the ACT. For this reason, the committee focused its inquiry on members of the ACT community who are potentially at risk of being adversely impacted. We heard evidence concerning young people, women, and people with disabilities in particular, and we found the changes to unfair dismissal laws have created fear and instability for many workers in low-paid positions.
The committee was disturbed to hear evidence of an increase in numbers of unfair dismissal cases in the ACT. As you will see from the report, the committee made 12 recommendations with a strong focus on the provision of comprehensive and appropriate information and legal advice. A number of recent research reports have highlighted the loss of award conditions and take-home pay for many workers, particularly for those in retail and hospitality where they are most reliant on awards. That is highlighted in the ACT by a comprehensive qualitative study of interviews with 14 women who have experienced adverse changes in their employment conditions since the introduction of WorkChoices, part of a national study of 120 women across Australia.
Mrs Burke’s comments about training young people are simplistic, I am afraid. Yes, we do have renewal, even though her colleague, Mrs Dunne, would like us to ignore
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .