Page 3972 - Week 12 - Thursday, 20 October 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
asked for—we want consultation on the laws—and he has refused time and time again. He has said that it is the biggest drafting program that the federal government has undertaken since coming to power, but he has made it clear that the first time that we will get any idea of what is outside of the material which the rest of the public have, of what is in the legislation, is when the legislation is tabled.
When a law is foreshadowed that affects the territory the way this law will once it is enacted, I cannot see a clearer example of the need to consult. We have a commitment from Minister Andrews to consult over laws that impact on the territory, and he has refused to take part in that consultation time and time again. His idea of consultation is: “Please hand over your powers and then we will be in a better position to talk to you about this legislation.” He is simply refusing to give those of us who are not in the position of the other states—that is, Victoria, the Northern Territory and the ACT—any indication of how they intend to legislate in this area.
The WorkChoices document refers to the fact that the laws will cover the field. It is unclear as to whether it is going to override legislation that we already have in place or whether it is just going to be a rewrite of the Workplace Relations Act. These are the serious issues that he has—
Mr Mulcahy: But you have not asked for a meeting; you have not asked his office for a meeting.
MS GALLAGHER: I have met with Minister Andrews at ministerial forums and have raised these matters with him, and he has refused to consult with us. He wrote to me last week after the WorkChoices document was released—I received it early last week— saying that he looks forward to making officers available to my officers to talk about the proposed framework. That is fine. I am sure those meetings will go ahead. But it is difficult to talk about a proposed framework when you have no idea of the framework you are talking about. They do not know what they are going to talk about if they do not have the legislation to talk about. It is clear that we are not going to have the legislation to talk about until it is all in the parliament. Those discussions simply cannot take place.
Mr Mulcahy also talks about the beauty of AWAs. The reality is that 87 per cent of the public service remain on collective agreements. I would have to check the figures that Mr Mulcahy is using of a 57 per cent increase in wages, or $1,378 higher than workers on certified agreements. The reason is that AWAs have been primarily taken up at the SES level, at the senior management level, where they certainly earn a great deal more than those that are covered by certified agreements. I would not necessarily be screaming that figure too loudly because I am not sure it is one to be proud of—13 per cent of a work force who are on AWAs earn 57 per cent more than those who are on a collective agreement. To me, that is a negative figure because it shows where those wages shifts have occurred; they have occurred at a level of management where salaries are already considerably higher than those of the majority of the work force.
If we were to be cheeky about these things, we could call Mr Seselja “Billy” because he took on an additional job with no more pay. As manager of opposition business—just like poor old Billy in WorkChoices, who had to trade away conditions for no extra pay— Mr Seselja this week has taken on additional work for no extra pay.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .