Page 2725 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In this context I have some concerns about the reduction in funding for government IR policy. This reduction is apparently being made because OHS laws will be harmonised with federal legislation next year. As an aside, I note, though, that the reduction is somewhat pre-emptive, as the ACT Assembly has not yet approved this harmonisation and that the bill has only just been introduced. The reduction in IR policy funding is of some concern because, firstly, I do not want it to impact on the government’s ability to respond to or to implement industrial relations legislation and initiatives that are proposed by non-government parties; and, secondly, I also expect we will still see at least the same level of IR policy initiatives being generated by government and that there will not be a policy hole. The ACT should be a leader in 1R policy and should be generating new ideas for improvement.
Moving on to a different but related issue, I am also keen to hear of any further developments to strengthen ACT legislation and processes around particular problems such as sham contracting. This was a discussion we had during the estimates process and it was also mentioned in the estimates report. I suggest that it is insufficient to defer to weaker national processes when there are identifiable improvements we can make here in the ACT.
There also needs to be responsibility taken particularly for services or work contracted out by government to other suppliers. It is not good enough for government to say, “We haven’t supplied the service so therefore it isn’t our responsibility.” It goes to the issue of responsibility down the line as services are contracted out. If government contract out for a service, they are still responsible for what happens as, in the end, it is a service provided to the ACT government and to the ACT community.
The appropriateness of our laws around workers compensation and entitlements is of interest to the Greens and is an area I continue to look at. I ask that the Chief Minister’s policy unit look at this area further and bring forward suitable amendments.
In relation to employment of people with disabilities in regard to overall government employment strategies, this sits within the Chief Minister’s department. The Greens are pleased to see new funds appropriated through this budget to assist improved employment of people with disabilities and people from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds. I moved a motion last year calling on the ACT government to renew the 2004 ACT public service employment framework for people with disabilities and, through that, to include people with chronic illness and mental illness, to collect and analyse disaggregated data and to increase the percentage of people with disabilities in the ACT public service workforce.
People with disabilities represent about 16 per cent of the Australian working age population yet constitute only 1.6 per cent of the ACT public service. I note the government through the 2011-15 employment framework for people with disabilities has adopted a target of 3.4 per cent by 2015, and the government should be held to that over coming years.
The new strategy says that the Commissioner for Public Administration will undertake a census of the public service and will include an analysis for issues such as gender. I hope that, through that process, the government will disaggregate the data,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video