Page 4119 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 13 December 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
DR FOSKEY: I am going to continue to speak in the same vein, so I shall end it right there. I actually thought that I was making a contribution to the debate. I think there was an issue about how the report came into existence.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not think you are not, Dr Foskey, but just keep an eye on it. That is fine. Thank you.
DR FOSKEY: I was going to go on to indicate other anomalies in the process and to say that the report, as it was presented and as it was given to the media, was released on the Friday before the weekend, most likely at a time when all the members of the committee were not able to see it. In that case, it cannot be seen as a report that represents all views of the committee. I believe that, if we are discussing a report like that, it is relevant to mention it. I feel that I have said enough about it. No doubt Labor members know all about it already and do not particularly want anyone else to.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must say, Dr Foskey, that, looking at the motion, I am quite comfortable that you are referring to the report that is encapsulated in this motion.
MS GALLAGHER (Molonglo—Minister for Health, Minister for Disability and Community Services and Minister for Women) (5.50): I will be brief because I imagine we would like to finish debate on Ms Porter’s motion today. I do not want to come back for half a speech in February.
This is a really important motion. The Senate report has missed an opportunity to offer some real solutions to the work-family balance—across the country, not just here in the ACT. A number of organisations have made repeated requests for the federal government to take leadership on the issue of work-family balance. Instead, the federal government has decided not to pursue those ideas.
It was a real shame that the Australian Industrial Relations Commission family test case provisions, which were accepted into awards, were overturned by the WorkChoices legislation. They included the quite reasonable right for an employee to request certain leave provisions and the employer’s obligation to not unreasonably refuse. It was a pretty commonsense way of dealing with some of the issues that working families experience, but we have lost that one for the time being. European countries, particularly the UK, are showing real innovation in terms of their policies and legislation for work-family balance. The federal—
Mr Mulcahy: They’ve done well in Germany, haven’t they? They just about wrecked their economy.
MS GALLAGHER: Well, you can speak about that, Mr Mulcahy. But let me look at some of the conditions. Australia and the US are the only OECD countries without a national paid maternity leave scheme. This is something that the ALP has wanted to see for some time. There should be a national maternity leave scheme providing 14 weeks paid maternity leave at no cost to small business.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .