Page 4801 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 14 December 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
(i) family friendly provisions;
(ii) annual, long service and public holiday leave;
(iii) rest and meal breaks;
(iv) leave loading; and
(v) penalty rates; and
(b) these changes will:
(i) prevent fair employee representation on workplace issues and undermine collective bargaining rights;
(ii) remove the roles of industrial organisations within workplace relations;
(iii) require secret ballots;
(iv) pose a threat to workplace safety; and
(v) remove the protection of unfair dismissal laws for workers; and
(2) calls on the federal government to admit the harmonious workplace relationship developed between employees, unions and employers have resulted in a productive economy, and retain workplace laws in their current form.
Two months is a long time in politics. Two months can mean the difference between a gut feeling and a fundamental truth and it was almost two months ago that I gave notice of my intention to move a motion regarding WorkChoices. It was on 18 October, to be precise, and I will admit that at the time, unlike Mr Mulcahy, who apparently received ongoing advice from his mates on the hill, I, like the majority of Australians, was still having to decipher Minister Andrews’s media releases to know what we here in the ACT were faced with. So it was a lot of gut feeling that led to this notice of motion, but it is with fact that I rose to move this motion today.
As I have stated, two months is a long time. Given the length of time, I think it appropriate to take the Assembly through a guided tour of the last two months and some key events. I will start with just one week before 18 October, 12 October, which was the day the Senate agreed to send any industrial relations amendments to an inquiry. On the same day, 12 October, here in the ACT the Canberra Times reported on the concerns of local and regional Anglican and Catholic clergy over the impact of WorkChoices on poor, low-income workers. The clergy claimed that low-income workers “could not bargain and simply could not get another job”.
Six days later, on the same day I gave notice of this motion, Queensland papers reported that in survey results more than 80 per cent indicated some sort of dismay at or opposition to the proposed IR changes. On that same day, Western Australian papers reported on the comments of an ex-commissioner, who called the then proposed changes regressive and destructive, claiming they mimicked the worst aspects of the US labour market.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .