Page 524 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 21 February 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
deal with, and we are in the midst of the first generation whose standard of living has been lower than their parents since economic growth became the norm.
This is something the ACT needs to be conscious of. Research by the ACT Council of Social Services, with the Women’s Centre for Health Matters, found the major growth industries in Canberra were more likely to be employing casualised workers. In turn, ACTCOSS reports that these people are most likely to seek emergency financial assistance.
These are the people we seek to support through this motion here today, and it is because we believe a government should seek to improve outcomes for workers to protect those who are most vulnerable. That is why everyone on this side of the chamber is lining up to speak in support of this motion today. We believe in reducing inequality. We believe in raising living standards and we believe in supporting secure jobs, which is precisely what this motion seeks to do.
MR WALL (Brindabella) (4.20): What a motion it is we have here today. Let me begin with my delight at the Chief Minister’s answer from question time today, when he said that the MOU will once and for all be terminated. But the big question is: at what cost? It seems the secure local jobs package consultation paper that has been put out has some alarming suggestions. I look forward to seeing industry’s comments, noting that very little of industry was consulted in the preparation of this paper before it was actually put out.
As we all know, the MOU gave unprecedented power by stealth to trade unions and the union movement in the ACT as a result of the document being signed by the current Chief Minister, and also I believe by Mr Stanhope, with UnionsACT. Seemingly there was no need for it under Ms Gallagher—her union connections were obviously very tight.
Ms Cody’s motion has serious structural flaws and fails to address a number of large parts of the Canberra community that are also falling victim to unscrupulous practices that exist within the economy. Paragraph (1)(a) of Ms Cody’s motion notes that every Canberra worker has the right to be paid properly. I suggest that is just not every employee but every subcontractor and every business that does work in any industry.
I have written on a number of occasions to the Chief Minister about a subcontractor that did a substantial amount of civil works on a government project, and the response I received was basically that the government’s interest in those kinds of issues stops with the primary contractor and that business disputes—that was the term he used—that exist between the head contractor and other contractors are a matter for them to resolve. So here you have an instance where, if a worker is not getting paid in the supply chain we have a massive issue, but when a business in a supply chain is not being paid—which, I remind everyone, employs people—it is really not such a significant issue.
Ms Cody’s (1)(c) notes the value of government procurement of goods and services as $1.8 billion in the ACT, and that is a substantial amount of spending in a financial year. But the question is: what level of local content are we seeing? More and more
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video