Page 144 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 17 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
achieved in the last decade across Australia - landmark change in industrial relations and what happens in the workplace - but doing it around the table with the trade union movement and with managers, not through this process of coercion, of intimidation, of "Sign on the dotted line, sign this individual contract or you are out the door".
Mr Berry: With a gun at your head.
MR CONNOLLY: "With a gun at your head", interjects Mr Berry.
Mr De Domenico: And where has that got you? A million unemployed. That is the bottom line.
MR CONNOLLY: Is your solution to slash wages? Is that your solution?
Mr De Domenico: No.
MR CONNOLLY: That appears to be your solution, because the Victorian Chamber of Commerce bloke said, "If you do not accept the contract you are offered, there are plenty of people outside the door wanting the job".
Mr De Domenico: That is Victoria. We are representing the ACT, Mr Connolly. We are not in Victoria. Talk about the ACT and the rorts that may be happening under your administration. That is what you have to talk about.
MR CONNOLLY: The term "rorts" is one that has been widely used by Mr De Domenico - - -
Mr De Domenico: And you.
MR CONNOLLY: No, not one that has been used by me, Mr De Domenico. I have never used the word "rorts". "Rorts" has appeared in headlines, and I have then been quoted as referring to payments that are not authorised by the award, but I have not used the word "rorts". Where I have become aware of payments that are not appropriate, we have moved on it.
The other one the Opposition was desperate to try to create a scandal about related to ACTION. A meal allowance that had been claimed for many years had not been authorised by an award.
Mr De Domenico: What about the six that were playing golf?
MR CONNOLLY: We became aware of this situation, and later we went to the commission and we consented to an order which retrospectively validated that payment. It had been a condition for many years and everyone had assumed that it had been authorised by the award. In fact the clause was not broad enough to cover it. It had been claimed; it had been paid. I can recall members opposite causing much agitation about that - this was a rort, this was terribly improper, how dare we have gone through that process - until they were confronted by the report of the Public Accounts Committee, which Mr Kaine had chaired. It said that the problem had been occurring, it was illegal and unauthorised, it then went to the commission, the commission validated it, and that was a proper process. They thought they were onto a scandal there but, sadly, they were not.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .