PPS: All the documents are available from:
PS: From ‘The Age’ today!
Victoria’s racing industry pay rates run a distant last
- Date: January 27, 2014 – 9:38PM
Clay Lucas
Illustration: Matt Golding
Strappers and stablehands in Victoria’s racing industry earn the lowest pay and have the worst conditions, according to the national workplace ombudsman.
An audit by the Fair Work Ombudsman of ?eastern seaboard racing tracks resulted in Victoria chalking up the worst performance in properly paying strappers and stablehands – the people who groom, feed and saddle racing horses and clean and maintain their stables.
Only a third were found to be paying their staff properly, far worse than in other states.
The audit followed the ombudsman receiving almost 100 complaints over pay and conditions from people in the industry, 35 from Victoria.
Of the horse-training businesses checked in Victoria, only 31 per cent complied with workplace laws. In NSW 86 per cent of businesses paid staff properly as did 76 per cent in Queensland.
In all, ombudsman inspectors checked the books of 86 horse trainers in metropolitan and regional NSW, Victoria and Queensland late last year.
A report to be released by the ombudsman on Tuesday cites the case of one horse trainer in Victoria whose business employed stablehands hired for periods of less than the legal minimum of three hours.
One Victorian trainer interviewed as part of the report said he was not aware there was a minimum amount for shift lengths and paid back $1985 to eight of his employees.
The correct rate of pay for strappers and stablehands is about $21 an hour depending on which state.
A trainer who was noted in the ombudsman’s report was found to be paying her casual staff a flat rate of $20 an hour, despite many working on Sundays when penalty rates applied.
The trainer back paid almost $16,000 to eight of her workers.
Of the 86 horse trainers audited, 34 were found to have underpaid a total of 61 employees almost $40,000.
Glen Eira Debates 
January 28, 2014 at 11:24 AM
what about this http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-17/jockey-breaks-silence-on-assault-to-call-for-racing-reform/4963314
January 28, 2014 at 11:45 AM
dont worry about the loss of car parking for the MRC with this development. It says there are 3000 spaces available in the middle of the race course
January 28, 2014 at 12:00 PM
We will be going through these myriad plans with a fine tooth comb and report on them when the info is digested.
In the great scheme of things, photocopying costs are admittedly trivial. However, they are indicative of how this council places every conceivable obstacle in front of residents. For example – Glen Eira charges $2.15 for an A4 sheet. A very, very quick Google search has revealed the following charges from other councils –
Moonee Valley – A4 size First 20 free then $1.40 each
Moreland – $1.25
Bayside – $0.70
January 28, 2014 at 12:19 PM
Wonder which Councillor will chair the meeting – the only ones that appear not to be conflicted are Delahunty, Sounness, Okotel and Lobo. My guess is for gang member Okotel with Lipshutz and Newton in the background calling the shots.
January 28, 2014 at 12:31 PM
This is a development plan procedure, NOT a planning permit process, so why should any Councillors be conflicted? Unless they own a property nearby there is no conflict of interest.
January 28, 2014 at 7:30 PM
Get ol Lipshutz to chair the meeting so all the people he shut down the first time can speak. The man has (MODERATORS: two words deleted) and lacks self awareness.
January 28, 2014 at 7:42 PM
Lipshitz cannot be the Chair. He is conflicted as he is a member of the MRC Trustees. This ain’t the CFMEU.
January 28, 2014 at 9:34 PM
Potential and real conflicts of interest have never worried this councillor. No conflict declared on the frisbee affair, nor his how to vote card mate’s development application and not even when he is named in a petition that queried his credentials to be an objective mrc trustee. This councillor sets his own rules and quite honestly seems to believe that the law and common practice does not apply to him.
Nearly forgot – there was also a letter to the editor a few years back about this councillor walking his dog off leash in an on leash area in Caulfield Park.
January 28, 2014 at 1:03 PM
Delahunty maybe but Sounness, Okotel and Lobo no way. Magee maybe?
January 30, 2014 at 6:50 PM
I hope anybody motivated to make a submission does so based on the Decision Criteria listed in Schedule 2 to s37.06, which is what Council is *supposed* to do. It does seem inappropriate for Ron Torres to publish his wildly inaccurate personal opinion that Council *cannot* consider comments regarding building heights, building footprints and/or setbacks. Of course they can. They must, if they are to comply with the Act and Planning Scheme, because they are part of the decision criteria. The fact that 4 councillors did a half-hearted job in assessing the Incorporated Plan almost 3 years doesn’t automatically mean that the submitted Development Plan must be approved, regardless of how much council staff really want it.
January 30, 2014 at 7:19 PM
Absolutely correct Reprobate. Objections should cover all aspects of the plan currently being submitted. Since this plan is not “generally in keeping” with the Incorporated Plan previously submitted – no. of residences, heights, incursions into public space, parking and traffic, retail and commercial space are substantially diverge by any standard.
Hence it objections can cover it all. Ron Torres should be ashamed of what he has presented and no resident or Councillor should buy it.
January 30, 2014 at 10:09 PM
Don’t blame Ron Torres. He like many others at Council only does what Andrew Newton instructs him to do. And the current lot voted him in for another 5 long years. Unbelievable.