Page 5443 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 8 December 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
CFMEU and have it certified that you have received particular information?” What would the building industry say about that? What would the property industry say about that?
I wonder what would happen if we said: “If you’re waiting on tables or serving at McDonald’s you must go to the miscellaneous workers union and be told what your rights are. You have to do that before you, as a 15-year-old, can sign on at McDonald’s or you, as a university student, can go and wait on tables in any restaurant in this town.” I wonder what all of those students would say. I wonder what all of the people in the hospitality industry would say. The question then is: if you do it for one industry, why will you not do it in other industries? What is so special about this industry?
If we want to have that discussion about how we protect vulnerable workers, whether they work in the security industry, the hospitality industry or the construction industry, let us have the conversation. Let us do it openly; let us do it with everyone at the table—not just your union mates. When we have that conversation and find there is general community agreement that there needs to be a form of information provided to people that is not in breach of commonwealth laws and does not seriously raise the costs of employing people, we will look at it. Until then, we will not. I thank Mr Rattenbury for his support and I condemn the minister for this sneaky approach.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (12.20): I would like to make a few comments in light of the attorney’s earlier intervention. I think the attorney and I are in furious agreement on what we seek to achieve here, which is to ensure that workers receive all the information they need for both their rights and their safety. The debate we are having is how that is best achieved.
It is my understanding that all security industry staff must go on a compulsory training course before they are allowed to commence work in the industry. It strikes me that it would be possible for a component to be added to that training course which outlines entitlements and safety requirements, for example. I am sure there are other possible approaches, but in the time that we have had to consider the bill and from the consultations we have undertaken, that is a possible pathway that we see. I simply offer that example as an illustration of where this debate is at: how do we best achieve what I think both Mr Corbell and I agree is a necessary step?
As I said earlier, I look forward to addressing this, hopefully early in 2010, in moving forward in a better and more balanced way that acknowledges the very important role that unions play in protecting workers’ rights and finds a more flexible way of ensuring that workers get the information that they need and the information that they deserve.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (12.22): Mr Rattenbury, we are not in furious agreement. We are not because you are not supporting these amendments. The Greens’ position on this is incredibly disappointing. It is incredibly disappointing because they fail to understand how this operates.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video