Page 2388 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 2 August 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
spread complete and utter lies about the premise of the issue and my stance on workplace safety. The robocall deployed to apparently some 20,000 households in Tuggeranong on 10 July was a low act in anyone’s book and very politically motivated. The caller was a concerned mum called Jane—apparently not the person who originally raised the issue—who falsely claimed that I was somehow single-handedly taking away workplace safety rights from our young people.
The call was used to discredit me because I dared to raise the issue of unions potentially recruiting in schools. I received a number of calls after that union-orchestrated robocall went out. A majority of them were largely confused about the message and were seeking clarification, which my office has since provided. I will read one email, forwarded to me, that was originally addressed to the Chief Minister, Mr Barr:
The reason for this email is, I have just received a recorded message from a person called Jane, claiming to be a mother of a teenager and asking for 30 seconds of my time to listen to a story claiming that Andrew Wall is somehow putting young students looking to become a trades persons welfare in danger. I don’t know if this true or not and not being a political animal I don’t follow local politics closely but if this is the best way you can get your messages out to the voting public then God help us. Jane, if that is her name has not got the intestinal fortitude or the good manners to leave a number or email address for me to debate the matter with her and only gave one option to leave so that she could pass the negative feedback on the Andrew Wall.
The email goes on to say:
Thank you for opportunity to voice my disappointment, particularly in the new low you’re party has stooped to try to score a few point against your opponents and if that is the best you can come up with then I think my other points of view I have stated are probably not far off the mark.
This negative campaign was immediately associated with the Labor Party, so it is reasonable to assume that an organisation that is obviously aligned and so intrinsically part of the Labor Party should not be responsible for delivering any program in our schools. We saw an enlightening example earlier this week which saw some publicity within Mr Rattenbury’s portfolio where parks and wildlife rangers were out presenting in schools. There are numerous examples where public servants or individuals under the employment and guidance of the ACT government appear in schools to deliver great programs that provide significant educational value. I am simply calling for us to maintain the independence of our school system, particularly our public school system, so that the function of the WorkSafe commissioner, who is tasked with not just the oversight and enforcement of workplace safety laws but also an educational function, is broadened and rolled out in schools in the ACT.
I look forward to hearing the comments of members opposite in this debate. I really cannot see any reason—I look forward to hearing them if there are any—why the office of the Workplace Safety Commissioner should not be delivering workplace health and safety programs in schools. I call on those opposite to explain why it
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video