Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 11 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 2914 ..

MR DE DOMENICO (continuing):

but an unidentified union official - was to plan for industrial disputation; not to negotiate anything, but to plan for industrial disputation. The ACT Trades and Labour Council had made it known earlier, through public announcements, that industrial disputation was looming and had given written notice to this effect.

On 8 December 1995, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance gave notice of its intentions to engage in protected action from the following Monday. The only response available to the employer under the law was to give unions and employees notice under the Industrial Relations Act of its intentions to consider using lockout provisions. It was made clear to employees throughout this period that, whilst all or any relevant employees could be locked out, such action would be taken against only employees directly taking part in industrial action, like the law says.

Let us look at the allegations that the Government has sought to inflame the industrial situation. Such allegations are utter nonsense. The Government and management have gone to great lengths to ensure that there has been a sensible and low-key approach to what has been some months of agitation by certain unions. Mr Speaker, as you would be aware, during the months leading up to the budget many unions made it very clear that they saw it as their role to seek to defeat the Government's budget. It is a reflection on the calibre of the Opposition that the unions took it upon themselves to take action. Public statements at the time were that it was their role to do it because they were not confident of the Opposition being able to do it.

There were a number of occasions on which the Government could have sought orders compelling staff to lift bans, but we did not. The Government was prepared to live with recommendations from the commission to lift bans and to continue discussions with unions as an alternative to going for the big stick or having stand-down clauses in awards. Strange as it may seem to the Opposition, the Government recognises that its greatest resource is its people, its work force. We have, therefore, always seen draconian action on our part as being a response to draconian action on behalf of the unions; definitely not as an initiative of the Government.

Let us look at the use of e-mail and other methods to communicate with staff. Mr Berry made a great deal of that point in his speech. Mr Berry keeps suggesting that it is inappropriate for management to talk to its staff via what he calls the Internet. Apart from being obviously wrong because it is not the Internet, it shows the paranoia that grips the Opposition. Management always has the right to talk directly to staff. There is no law or requirement that communication with staff has to be via the unions only, and Mr Berry should know that.

Throughout the enterprise bargaining process, management has communicated both with unions and with staff. In a number of cases brought before the Industrial Relations Commission, prior to the passing of the Government's budget, no fault was found with the way in which the government agencies were conducting themselves with the unions. Indeed, there were many cases where it was recommended by the umpire, the Industrial Relations Commission, that unions lift bans.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .