Page 3825 - Week 14 - Thursday, 10 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR DE DOMENICO (3.54): Mr Deputy Speaker, by any measure last Monday's political strike was a fizzer. In fact, when you look at page 1 of the Canberra Times on 1 December it shows that the major publicity went to the next Federal member for Canberra, Mr Stefaniak. He was there, by the way, demonstrating against the demonstration. Page 5 went to Ms Follett, who in fact was not there. Mr Stefaniak was there; but Ms Follett, the Chief Minister, as this afternoon, was not there. She was not there then; she is not here now.
It is interesting to note that Ms Follett was not there. The weekend before the strike she had virtually condoned it on ABC radio and other places as a political strike. She had obviously, and quite rightly, as a matter of fact, had second thoughts after hearing what some of her State and Federal colleagues had to say about the strike. We all know what Mr Carr, the Labor leader in New South Wales, had to say. He said that it was the most incredible nonsense that ever happened. Of course, they bucketed him because he was not allowed to say that. Ironically, Senator Peter Cook, the Federal Minister for Industrial Relations, was not very happy about the strike going ahead either. He said words to that effect as well. Carmen Lawrence, the Labor Premier of Western Australia, not a Liberal Party member or apparatchik, expressed concern at the day of action, or whatever it was, as well.
Martin Ferguson is the president of the ACTU, and the headline in the Canberra Times read, "Ferguson wants unions to negotiate with employers - Halt strike, says ACTU". The article read:
The president of the ACTU, Martin Ferguson, said yesterday that he would prefer - - -
(Quorum formed) Mr Ferguson was reported as saying:
I must say that I personally believe that we should now concentrate our energies at a work-place level about talking to individual employers about whether or not you are prepared to maintain the award system.
So, there is no doubt that it was a political rally on 30 November. It had nothing to do with working conditions for Territory employees. It is interesting that Mr Connolly said that it was no such thing. It was not a strike; it was a lunchtime rally. Mr Berry, on the other hand, said that it was only fair for workers to demonstrate. So, while Mr Connolly was suggesting that someone was having a sandwich in the park at lunchtime, Mr Berry is now saying that it was a demonstration, a day of action. You cannot have it both ways.
It is interesting, Mr Deputy Speaker, to see what the unionists who attended the strike or the rally, or whatever you want to call it, said. I quote one particular person who said:
We are happy knowing that our day of action has succeeded in putting coalition policies in a negative light.
That is what the unions thought it was. It is interesting, Mr Deputy Speaker, to see what Madam Speaker had to say about the rally. The Speaker, according to the Canberra Times, said that she did not attend the rally for fear of appearing partisan at a political rally during a sitting period. That was what the Speaker of this house, Ms McRae, said, and it bears repeating. She did not attend the rally for fear of appearing partisan at a political rally during a sitting period.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .