Page 2982 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 16 October 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
election and changes that may ensue, the committee expects that the ACT government will give due consideration to the recommendations made in this report.
I know Mrs Burke found differently, and she has outlined the reasons why. However I do not believe that sitting on our hands and saying, “Well, we can’t do anything about this, so we’ll just have to let it run its course and see what happens,” is either sensible or fair. Maybe Mrs Burke and her colleagues, like many other people, are just hoping the whole thing will go away. Well, be careful what you wish for, as the Australian people may well just demonstrate how they feel about this unfair legislation in the next little while. However, we can only deal with what is in place at the moment, and to ignore it is akin to the boiling frog approach which, up to now, Mrs Burke’s federal colleagues have employed in regards to climate change. If we employ that approach, then we are always reactive instead of being proactive. This is neither fair nor sensible, Mr Speaker, as I said. The ACT deserves better.
Debate interrupted.
Leave of absence
Motion (by Mr Stanhope) agreed to:
That leave of absence be granted to Ms Gallagher (Deputy Chief Minister) for this sitting week.
Working Families in the Australian Capital Territory—Select Committee
Report
Debate resumed.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (5.51): This is a sad little report from an inquiry that has gone on for two years—actually more than that; it is 2¼ years. It is supposedly the report of the inquiry into the impact of industrial relations legislation on working families in the ACT.
It cannot be said too often that working families do not get a look in in this. Mr Speaker, you have only to turn to the list of witnesses who came and took up the extremely valuable time of the chairman over the 14-odd hours that the committee took evidence. Let us look at the list of witnesses—the people who appeared and expressed their views on the legislation in relation to working families. They are: UnionsACT; UnionsACT again—they came back for two bites of the cherry; the human rights office; Creative Safety Initiatives; the Transport Workers Union; the Youth Coalition of the ACT—I suppose that there is youth in families, but they are not families; the Women’s Legal Centre—ditto: they do represent some members of families, but do not represent families; Norris Cleaning Company; the National Foundation for Australian Women; Women with Disabilities ACT; the ACT government; the CFMEU ACT division; the AEU ACT branch; the TWU Canberra sub-branch; the ACT Council of Social Service—well, they would have a perspective on families; the ACT and Region Chamber of Commerce and Industry; and UnionsACT, for the third time.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .