Tuesday, 10 October 2006
Member for Perth
Not only on the face of the letter of offer in the AWA is there a higher hourly rate being paid; the letter of offer then sets out the rates of pay for years 1, 2 and 3 under this Australian workplace agreement. Starting at $30.02 as an hourly rate, it then increases to $31.67 and to $33.10 the following year. In other words, on the first anniversary of employment—quite contrary to what the member for Perth has said—we see that this provides for a 5.5 per cent increase so far as the pay is concerned and the second year provides a further 4.5 per cent increase over and above what had been paid prior to that.
So on two counts—on two grounds—on the face of this documentation the member for Perth has misled this House. He has misled this House because the AWA and the letter of offer show an entirely larger amount so far as the hourly rate is concerned, which is contrary to the claims he made in this place. Secondly, it shows that there is an increase of 5.5 per cent in the first year and 4.5 per cent in the second year. That is why we are bringing this motion in relation to the member for Perth.
Can I put this in a context in the couple of minutes available. The context is that for month after month we have had the member for Perth come into this place raising allegations such as he did with this without any true documentation as to them, and when they have been investigated by the Office of Workplace Services or the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations or any other competent body it has been found time after time after time that he has been misleading the House on these matters. This time he has been caught out red-handed, and it is either an act of stupidity on his part or a willingness to come in here and just trot out anything that has been provided to him by the unions. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition is implicated in this particular action because it was both the member for Perth and the Leader of the Opposition who were down at the building site yesterday claiming that the facts of this case were so different to what they have been found to be now. So the House ought to support this motion, because the member for Perth has been caught red-handed wilfully dismissing the facts in this case, wilfully—