Page 2974 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 16 October 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The majority committee recommended that the ACT Attorney-General liaise with the ACT Law Society to secure permanent funding for a full-time women’s employment lawyer for the women’s legal centre, and a youth employment lawyer for the youth legal centre. I do not have a particular problem with this, but I note that the success of the Workforce Authority in implementing the fairness test has probably reduced the urgency.
The majority of the committee recommended that the ACT government develop strategies to ensure that tenders and subcontracting arrangements are assessed on the provision of fair pay and conditions of employment and do not compete on the basis of labour costs. This recommendation was based on the More work, less choice report based on interviews with a small sample of 14 employees and the evidence from a small business operator who has never tendered for an ACT government contract. At this point it is really shocking that I do not recall, and the committee never saw or heard directly from, one working family during the two years the committee was in existence. It is not a strong basis to suggest replacing the criteria of providing value for money as the basis for selecting tenderers. We all saw what happened when the Stanhope government ignored value for money as a criterion in selecting FireLink. It was a fiasco, as outlined in the Auditor-General’s report.
There are recommendations on youth unemployment, disabilities, mortgage and finance brokers and workers compensation, which are outside the terms of reference. That one-third of the recommendations are outside the terms of reference speaks volumes for the usefulness of this committee. Mr Gentleman and Ms Porter are like lazy school children who are padding out an essay to try and cover up that they have not done the work. Unfortunately, this committee has been an abject waste of time from the beginning. It has also been a waste of tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money and an absolute abuse of the Westminster system and what the select committee process actually stands for.
I have recommended that select committees should focus their attention on matters for which the ACT Legislative Assembly has legislative responsibility, and we had an example of this afternoon. The Chief Minister thinks global, acts global. He forgets what he is doing half the time. He is more interested in international affairs than where the rubber meets the road here in the territory. This committee had its focus outside this Assembly. We have no role and responsibility—
Mr Gentleman: Who wrote this rubbish?
MRS BURKE: We are unable to do anything about this report. In fact, it is useless. It is not worth the paper it is written on. I have recommended that select committees should focus their attention on areas where the ACT Legislative Assembly has legislative responsibility. This will avoid situations where committees spend months or, in this case, years looking into something that the Assembly has limited powers to act on. Unfortunately, Mr Speaker, the only Canberra working family to benefit from this committee has been Mr Gentleman’s.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (5.25): Mr Speaker, this is an interesting report, because it is a report that floundered several times in its production. This report has taken two years to write, but when you look for the term “working families” in the body of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .