Page 323 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 7 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella—Minister for the Territory and Municipal Services, Minister for Housing and Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (5.31): In speaking to Mr Stefaniak’s amendment, I have to congratulate him on the brazenness with which he attempts to put a positive spin on WorkChoices. I think that is a pretty brave thing to do. How anybody can put anything positive about WorkChoices is absolutely beyond me.
Mr Seselja: He is apparently against employment growth.
Mr Mulcahy: The highest level of employment in the past 30 years.
Mr Seselja: You are against that now?
MR HARGREAVES: Of course I am; I will just be your puppet, Mr Seselja. You can be the puppeteer any time you like. I am happy to do that, as long as it keeps you happy.
MR SPEAKER: Conversations across the floor in the course of a debate are highly disorderly. Direct your comments through the chair and let us get on with it.
MR HARGREAVES: Okay, Mr Speaker. But I am very happy to be Mr Seselja’s puppet to his puppeteer if he will smile like that all the time when he talks about the positive nature of WorkChoices. He tells us how 17-year-olds can come on to any building site in Australia at the moment and say, “I would like this particular piece of working conditions, please. I would really like to go home tonight. I don’t want to get killed, because that would really wreck my day, that would.” What happens? There is absolutely no guarantee of that anymore.
All power to Katy Gallagher’s arm when she introduced the industrial manslaughter laws. Mr Speaker, you will appreciate that. We have to do things like that because there is no guarantee of workplace safety while ever you have got these draconian laws in place. You have got a complete David and Goliath arrangement. A young fellow trying to get himself a decent amount of money for a decent day’s work: what chance has he got? If it is an equal bargaining arrangement, would he go in and say to John Hindmarsh, “John, I have been working really hard and I would like to have the same amount of money as this bloke over here who does not quite work as hard as me.” Would Mr John Hindmarsh and his delegate say, “Yeah, mate. No sweat. Hear this. That is why WorkChoices are good for you”? I don’t think so!
Whether it is Thiess, John Hindmarsh, the Kondouris family or the Uncle Tom Cobbley building company it does not make any difference. They say, “According to WorkChoices, mate, you have got two choices: you can get back to work or you can leave.” That is what WorkChoices is all about. It is about putting the weight on one side of the argument. There is nothing positive about bullyboy tactics. There is absolutely nothing positive about having a lack of empowerment, about being disenfranchised. There is nothing in it at all.
The WorkChoices legislation is an abomination on society and particularly in the building industry. There was a building site not long ago—and I have to pay some
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .