Page 824 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 13 March 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
its game, even though, try as it might, it could not follow it through. In fact, this Government tried to turn a political fight into an industrial fight, to widen the argument, to widen the blue to divert attention from its attack on the school system.
Eventually, through all sorts of chicanery, the Government brought in contractors, which it said it would not do, and, of course, we ended up with a confrontation where Mr Collaery supported the police arrests of community members protesting about the loss of their schools. That, of course, included the unfortunate woman who had no sight, and her dog. The end result was that there had to be an industrial settlement with the unions on the issue, and I can tell you that none of the unions were happy with the Government's performance on that matter. Of course, the ramifications are that the damage that has been done in industrial relations will persist for a long time, but it will be repaired by a progressive government.
Let us look at the Hunt Boilers dispute. Here we have a government who had assured the people of Canberra that it would not happen again. This Minister here, Minister Duby, said that what happened with the failure of the Shelleys company would not happen again. The people of Canberra well remember the disaster of the Shelleys collapse, and the roads that were closed for months and months under this Minister who claims to have fostered good industrial relations. The reason why the roads were closed was the collapse of the Government on industrial relations and its failure to administer contracts. The Hunt Boilers dispute was another example of where the Government could not deliver. This Government said that it would not happen again, but it happened again; and, of course, we are yet to see the final outcome of that. More information is to come.
The professional officers dispute was mentioned, where the Government tried to prevent workers from getting overtime payments in the course of a transfer from day to night shifts. That did not work in the end. There was the HEF dispute which Mr Humphries claims was a great profit to the community. It is well for the Government to say that there has been some troublesome leadership in a particular union in the Territory, and that there is a great victory when we get rid of those troublesome union leaders; but Mr Humphries did not once mention what was happening to the workers that were normally protected by that union. They are the ones that are the big losers. This Government has not performed well on industrial relations, Mr Speaker, and my motion deserves to be carried.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .