Page 663 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 24 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Greens were the only people in this place who did not put forward a woman candidate for your position.
I had in mind to move amendments which have been circulated but, given that the minister has also circulated a number of amendments, which indicate that she is broadly in sympathy with some of the proposals in paragraph (2) which I found most troublesome, I think that I will not take up the time of the Assembly. But I will address, by addressing the way this matter could be amended, the problems that I have with this motion.
Ms Hunter’s motion, in essence, is about inequality of pay scales for people employed in the social and community sector when compared to those employed in the public service. I would have proposed that in doing this we also acknowledge, as I have said before, that men, as well as women, are employed in the social and community sectors in the ACT and that we acknowledge that, in that context, more than 80 per cent of that workforce comprises women. I would seek to acknowledge that all workers in the social and community sector, men and women equally, suffer from pay inequity when compared to their counterparts in the public service.
I also contemplated moving an amendment to paragraph (2) of Ms Hunter’s motion because I do not think it is appropriate that we should put an obligation on the ACT government to respond to the pay equity case that is outlined there. I think that it is unreasonable for the government to commit, sight unseen, to a new policy without knowing the outcome of that test case. I would have proposed that the government look at the test case and report back to the Assembly rather than what is currently being proposed.
I notice that Minister Burch’s approach is somewhat different but she does still seem to be committing, sight unseen, to what comes out of the test case, and I think that is quite problematic. I note that Ms Burch’s amendment is no better than the original and it does no more than put the original paragraph into different words to achieve the same outcome. And I am concerned that a minister in the government is prepared to commit the government to certain things, probably with a financial price tag, sight unseen, with no analysis or review. I will be most surprised if the Chief Minister, and particularly the Treasurer, could agree to a policy commitment based on completely unknown facts.
But I suppose the other thing is that the Stanhope government has a record of committing to things sight unseen and then not delivering on them, as we saw with the review of the bushfire task force, the McLeod report, when the Chief Minister said, “We will adopt all the recommendations of the McLeod report,” before the McLeod report came out, and over the years we saw him casting off more and more of the recommendations of the McLeod report. So, even if the minister here today agrees to do these things sight unseen, I think Ms Hunter had better not hold her breath, because it may not happen.
The problem is that there are also a lot things already being done in relation to Ms Hunter’s demands in here. We have to note that the government already does quite a lot of analysis of the engagement of women in the public service, and the minister
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video