Page 3820 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 19 October 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We in this place have consistently expressed our disappointment at the harsh reality of John Howard’s fourth term agenda; we have commented on the impending sale of Telstra and the effects on ACT residents; we have debated the detrimental effects on our community of voluntary student unionism legislation; and we have expressed our dismay at the nature of proposals to move sole parents and those with disabilities into the workforce without respect for the impediments they face. But until now, I could always attribute this misdirection of policy to populous politics and cheap point-scoring. However, with the introduction of the WorkChoices legislation package, the government has gone a step too far. They have ignored public sentiments and simply sold out middle Australia so that John Howard could fulfil a lifelong ideological ambition.
My colleagues have spoken in this place a number of times about the direct effects of this legislation and what it will mean for the working conditions of ordinary Australians. While I add my wholehearted endorsement to their outrage over proposals such as reducing the number of allowable matters to five, withdrawing dismissible protections for employees in firms with fewer than 100 workers and extracting the teeth from the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, I wish to highlight other injustices which will inevitably be a by-product of this legislation. I also wish to highlight the disdain with which the federal government is treating the Canberra community by using its controlling powers to test this draconian legislation on our citizens.
The Howard government has no mandate for these changes. They were not part of the legislative package that Mr Howard took to the Australian public in 2004. They are simply the effect of Mr Howard’s power grab. Mr Howard no doubt came into work on the first day of the 2005 sitting period and realised that barnstorming Barnaby Joyce had effectively delivered him the power to institute an agenda he had personally developed back in the 1950s. Or at least so he thought. Maybe, just maybe, we will see the coalition senator have enough ticker to stand up against this abuse of power. But I will not hold my breath.
By implementing this agenda of which these IR changes are an integral part, Mr Howard has ignored the basis of representational democracy and, in doing so, has ignored the responsible examples set by the majority Stanhope government. When a government is entrusted with the power to institute policy unfettered, they have a responsibility to consult and to be responsive to the needs of the community they represent.
Opinion polls and surveys have continually told us that between 60 and 80 per cent of Australians are opposed to this IR legislation. They have unquestionably said that they are opposed to the withdrawal of their working conditions and their ability to negotiate fair wages and conditions.
So what is Mr Howard’s strategy to address this expression of dissent from the voters who put him in power? He has decided to spend over $100 million of their hard-earned tax dollars to develop and implement a propaganda campaign designed to trick them into supporting the abolition of their conditions.
Given the widespread opposition to these reforms, one would think Mr Howard would have found it difficult to convince ordinary workers or even actors to participate in the production of this propaganda advertising. I must say that I found it strange that there
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .