Page 653 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 28 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
way it does. What are we going to do for the next 12 months? We will keep waiting for reports to come in from people who are outraged. The union may drum up some support and they may get such people to present their cases. I can see it now. I want to have a proper debate—not like this. This is an absolute disgrace. The report gives an update as to how various people think Work Choices and industrial relations changes may affect them. It is “think” and “may”. Let us have hard evidence, and then let us have the debate.
I do not necessarily say that everything the federal government is going to say or do is right. It is nonsense for Mr Gentleman to sit there and accuse me of taking some position. He says he was in despair and that, “Mrs Burke ridicules the work of the committee.” That is rubbish. I have ridiculed the process and where we are up to right now because, quite frankly, I do not believe we have achieved much at all since this committee was established. Mr Gentleman, as people well know, receives a remuneration of $10,000 per annum for taking part in this committee while we sit there having brief meetings. I want to have the debate—I say that quite clearly. Members of the Assembly, we need to have the debate; we need to see the effects; but this committee was established too soon.
Mr Gentleman also said I had somehow put in jeopardy the statement of somebody who said he feared for the safety of his son. I may go out tomorrow and get knocked over by a big red bus and so may we all. There but for grace of God go any one of us. That is not hard evidence. Bring me the evidence that this son has suffered and then you will have my vote on this. I think you jolly well know that, Mr Gentleman, as you sit there making these statements.
You talk about the federal government having an agenda. What is your agenda here? Let us bring it back on in a sensible period of time when we have the issues to discuss. Quite frankly, I do not know what we are going to do for the next little while, but you get your salary, the taxpayer pays for it and we get nothing to show for it. How are we going to analyse, by 2007, the evidence that comes in? Quite frankly, this is not on and I think you know it. It is time you stood up and said, “Frankly, yes; we have to suspend. We should wait until we get the evidence and then we can move on.”
Concerns are all that have been registered to date but no effects have been heard. We have hearsay as to what might happen but no hard facts. The committee was established far too early. Was giving Mr Gentleman a pay rise courtesy of the ACT taxpayers simply a means of factional appeasement? Mr Gentleman talks about the federal government having an agenda. All right, you are going to use this committee system for your own political gain but let us have some facts on the table. I think the efforts of Ms Porter and Mr Gentleman to continue to ramp up this scaremongering campaign are absolute nonsense. Get the hard evidence and then resume your committee. If you can take this on your shoulders—continue to have taxpayers’ money and not be embarrassed by that—then go for your life. How can this committee pre-empt the effects of legislative change? All we have heard to date are concerns—and there has been a lot of crystal ball gazing.
I appreciate the people who have come forward to contribute to this report. Much of this has just been extrapolated out of the Senate committee’s submissions and translated to what it will mean in the territory. We are pre-empting legislation. We have no idea where we are really going with this. It is a bit like, “We will go each day and see what else we
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .