Page 4887 - Week 13 - Thursday, 2 November 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
to the Deputy Chief Minister role. There is no secret that she is in fact currently the darling of the union movement.
The ability of UnionsACT to dictate to the government who should effectively be hired and fired is a gross misuse of influence and a stark reminder of exactly how much power is exerted over members of the Labor government, and particularly those who sit on the front bench, under the leadership of Mr Barr.
Recently, UnionsACT have turned their sights on the deputy director of Access Canberra. They are accusing him of “hindering unions”, which, in their view, is a reason to be sacked. We know that the memorandum of understanding between UnionsACT and the ACT government gives the power of veto to unions when it comes to the procurement of goods and services. This means effectively that if you dare to disagree with the unions, you do not get a look-in for government contracts. This control has been no more evident in recent times than in the handling of school cleaning contracts.
Examples of this are rife, and the fear of recrimination for many in the business sector is real. Speaking publicly of the corruption racket that occurs in this town can have a far-reaching effect. Many businesses in this town have been made or broken based on the level of union support that they have displayed.
This is the situation in the ACT. Those who dare to disagree with a government policy or Labor party directives will be punished while their supporters, seemingly, as has been evidenced, get favourable treatment. The so-called party of the worker is more focused on backroom deals benefiting union bosses, to the detriment of workers and employers.
As I mentioned this has been no more evident than in the recent repackaging of works for school contract cleaning. Many local contractors were left unable to compete for the work that they have done in some cases for decades, because works packages were resized to suit only large national companies—the same companies who sign union agreements. The result of this, I am led to believe, is a significantly greater cost to taxpayers, backroom deals for unions and benefits paid through the EBAs that these companies have entered into.
These examples of undue influence are all an indictment of the leadership of this Chief Minister. This is a serious motion with serious consequences, backed by serious evidence. The fact remains that this motion will not succeed without the support of the Greens. Mr Rattenbury, in his comments here today and publicly, has displayed many of the characteristics of a delusional parent, unwilling to take responsibility for the misbehaviour of their young one. In this instance Mr Rattenbury is simply unwilling to even acknowledge that the government that he has supported now for two terms could possibly do anything wrong.
I think Mr Hargreaves has put it most aptly in saying, “Do you think Shane Rattenbury would do himself out of a job? Yeah right!”
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video