Page 1661 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 1 April 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Let us come back to first principles. The most important people whom we have to consider are the 1,200 kids whose lives are impacted by the quality of the care and protection workers that we employ. That is our first priority. I, as the minister, have an obligation: my constituents are those children and their interests will always come first. And when it comes to recruitment we will recruit the best. We will recruit the best care and protection workers.
We have had a number of recruitment rounds and attempts in Australia. We were unsuccessful in filling all of the available positions, so we went overseas, and we have some outstanding care and protection workers. We have increased the number of workers in that unit from about 30 up to 105. There has been a 150 per cent increase in resources in this area because this government and the Labor Party take these matters seriously. We believe child protection is above petty politics, opposition for opposition’s sake, which is what we are getting yet again from Mrs Dunne, who is more interested in a cheap headline than the care and protection of 1,200 vulnerable kids in this territory.
That is the sad state of the Canberra Liberals today—that her only point is that I should have intervened, in a merit selection process, to prefer Australian workers. That is her point. That is her public policy position. It is weak, it is pathetic and it really goes to the heart of what the Liberal Party stands for, and that is nothing—nothing but cheap headlines. This government, once again, will stand firm in support of those 1,200 kids. That is our number one priority—and anything that Mrs Dunne has to add on this matter is opposition for opposition’s sake.
MR SPEAKER: Mrs Dunne, a supplementary question?
MRS DUNNE: Minister, you were also quoted yesterday as saying that the people whose contracts you did not continue were unqualified. What qualifications were these Australian workers lacking?
MR BARR: I indicated in my response that some of those workers did not have their full qualifications. Some were still studying for them. Others did, but the other applicants in this recruitment round had more experience and, in many instances, better qualifications, and that is the important thing.
I come back to this point: if a temporary contract is to mean an indication of ongoing permanent employment then we will have to rethink IR laws in this country. We already have made a major reform at the federal level. Again, our really consistent public policy experts, our team of purists over here, have had such a strong position on that. But if they are suggesting that we alter the public sector recruitment policies, such as to prefer one nationality over another, if that is the serious point they want to make then let them move a legislative change to that effect. Put your money where your mouth is. Don’t run this racist campaign against these British workers. If that is what this is all about, what have these people done wrong, other than wanting to work in our care and protection system for the benefit of vulnerable kids? What have they done wrong to deserve this sort of treatment from this opposition? It is outrageous.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .