Page 146 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 17 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
through parliament to knock off people's longstanding industrial entitlements such as recreation leave and leave loadings; not through a process of guaranteeing workers before an election that nobody will be one dollar worse off and then the day after the election announcing the abolishing of award systems and knocking off people's longstanding entitlements.
That is not the way to go about it. The way to go about change is the way this Government is doing it. If members have concerns about the way salary bills are put together, or the components of salary bills, or suggestions of improprieties, all they need to do is ask specific questions about specific areas and we will give them the information.
MR LAMONT (12.02): Madam Speaker, this motion is interesting, basically because of what it does not say. What it does not say is that this group of people over here supported the policies of Jeff Kennett and support the policies of John Hewson and John Howard, and they are predicated on fear. They are predicated on dealing with the work force in this country by confrontation as opposed to conciliation.
Mr De Domenico: From the mouths of babes - - -
MR LAMONT: Bubble and squeak over here would far rather see - - -
Mr De Domenico: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I do not know who he thinks is bubble and who he thinks is squeak, but if the Chief Minister insists on being called by her appropriate title, which I agree with, I suggest that Mr Lamont do the same.
MR LAMONT: The honourable bubble and squeak over here.
Mr De Domenico: Once again, Madam Speaker - - -
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr De Domenico, Mr Lamont was addressing his remarks to me, as is appropriate. He was not addressing his remarks to anyone else, so he may once in a while stray into commentary on the Opposition. Mr Lamont, please continue.
MR LAMONT: Thank you. There is no imputation, and I would withdraw it, Madam Speaker, to allow the debate to continue. I thank you for your ruling, which was the appropriate one, of course.
Mr Cornwell: I thought it might have been a reflection on the Chair, but never mind.
MR LAMONT: Not at all. It is obvious that the criticisms strike home, and the Opposition has become just a little more sensitive in the lead-up to this election. This motion attempts quite clearly to line up the working conditions of workers in the Australian Capital Territory. Today they are proposing to look at those issues associated with government employees. Tomorrow under Dr John and his mate they are looking at the working conditions of every worker in the ACT, every wage and salary earner and every contractor in the ACT. That is the basic tenet of their industrial relations policy. The only way you can adjust wages, conditions or contract prices is downwards. There has not been an occasion under people like their mate in Victoria, their fellow traveller, where there has been an adjustment which in real terms has been upwards.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .