Page 147 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 17 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Humphries: New Zealand.
MR LAMONT: What an interjection! Let us talk about New Zealand, because that is what they wish to emulate. Let us have a look at Telecom in New Zealand.
Mr Humphries: They have higher growth than us, and lower inflation.
MR LAMONT: High growth? You go and tell that to the 5,000 people that your policies in New Zealand have put on the dole queue in the last 24 hours. It is an absolutely terrible predicament for any country to be in, and that is acknowledged. It is a hard enough fight in these times to maintain the unemployment rate at what is acknowledged by everybody as an unacceptably high level. What is going to happen under your policies is that that trend will accelerate, and therein lies the difference. In every single policy initiative, you will have your hands in the workers' pockets - every time they put their hand in, out comes Dr John with 15 per cent. All you are attempting to do is to emulate those policies and instil that fear quotient back into industrial relations.
Let us have a look at what your motion says. You are not lining up just those over-award payments that you allege have been rorted, which I believe the Minister has quite adequately demonstrated is not the case. What has happened, Mr De Domenico, is that you have lined up in your gunsights exactly the same conditions of service that your mate in Victoria has and that have been lined up in New Zealand. Overnight, despite the promises of Telecom in New Zealand in relation to employment, they said, "We now suddenly want to get rid of 5,000 of you". It was 40 per cent of their work force in one hit.
Those are the policies you espouse. They are what you support and, despite the fact that you have not been forthright enough nationally to say that, the Australian people, including those living in Canberra, can see through it. Your actions speak louder than your rhetoric. The actions of your mates in Victoria and in New Zealand speak louder than your rhetoric. What you are trying to do by setting up a house of cards here is quite simple. Let us look at maternity leave and other conditions of service that are enjoyed. Let us look at what your motion sets up for the chop.
Mr De Domenico: Where in my motion do you see the words "maternity leave"?
MR LAMONT: Let us have a look. It says:
That the Government immediately initiate an inquiry into all over-award payments, benefits and concessions paid or made to employees in the ACT Government Service including the staff of agencies such as ACTEW ...
What are the benefits?
Mrs Carnell: What does Fightback say about maternity leave?
MR LAMONT: I do not believe what you have in the "frightpack". This man said in November, "If I have to change Fightback, I will resign". He has said exactly the same thing now under mark 23, or whatever the number is now up to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .