Page 1526 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
families in the ACT of reforms to the industrial relations system”. That is why I am proposing in my motion that we suspend the operation of the committee from the date of this motion until March 2007, for those very reasons—and it is sensible; it is very sensible.
I am certainly not in any way opposed to the establishment of the Select Committee on Working Families in the ACT. And let us remember that we are talking about a select committee—we are not talking about a standing committee—and 18 months for a select committee is absolutely disgraceful. It is an abuse of what select committees were specifically set up for: do the business, report, get out, get on with it. This is a disgrace. I have made it abundantly clear that it is important we have such a debate—absolutely. What I have consistently said, however, is that this select committee was pre-emptive in its establishment. As I said earlier in this place and have said often, how can any of us justify expending taxpayers’ money on such a committee at this time? How embarrassing it is: “We are going to continue pushing forward. This is our agenda. Blow you lot, blow you taxpayers—you can pay for it while we just bash on and bang on about something that we really can have little to no impact about as legislators.”
Even the government’s own submission did not address all aspects of the terms of reference. Page 23, paragraph 3.11, displays that it cannot fully address the perceived impacts of the new WorkChoices legislation. It was a sensible response. To do so is simply pre-emptive. The position of the Liberal opposition is quite clear. We support debate on any policy issue that may impact upon the ACT. Statements made by other members of the Assembly that imply that we do not support the rights of people employed in the ACT are most disingenuous and incorrect. They do little more than display to our community that some wish only to engage in the game of blame in this arena, simply because the voices of the union movement and the ALP are no longer heard and appear to hold no relevance in the federal sphere.
I am here to represent all Canberrans, and to that end if I believe we are not effectively utilising taxpayers’ money I would be derelict in my duty if I did not openly and publicly say so. I am concerned, as I have said time and time again, that this is a blatant abuse of the select committee system and it degrades the purpose for which they were intended. We should all look very carefully at the reasons why we set up a select committee and for how long that committee should be in operation.
This select committee, if allowed to just amble on, will run for over two years after its inception. I do not believe this is a reasonable time frame for a select committee to continue to operate. Given that the taxpayer will fork out around $10,000 per annum remuneration for the chair, plus other associated administration costs, for doing little to nothing for a period of 12 months or more, as in this case, it is deplorable. I ask members to very carefully and conscientiously consider the amendment I propose and to ensure that we do make the best use of already stretched resources. The question is, however: is the Stanhope government prepared to accept such a point and display to the electorate that it would be wise to suspend this select committee until enough time has passed so that evidence will surface that reliably and validly determines the effects on working families in the ACT, positive or negative, arising from the changes to the federal industrial relations system?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .