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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 11 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 2919 ..

MR CONNOLLY (continuing):

that a reason for that withdrawal has been the realisation that to disclose the Liberals' true approach to industrial relations, which is that the workers will take what they are offered or they will lock them out, would cause considerable distress to the Liberals' Federal industrial relations strategy.

We were at the situation - it was very clear from the statements of the Trades and Labour Council, from Mr Pyner's statements on Friday - where the ACTU would have had to be brought into this dispute were the lockout provisions invoked. There is no doubt that, if this Government invoked lockouts on its public sector work force, this dispute would have been elevated to the level of an ACTU matter. It would have clearly received the national limelight. The ACT Liberal Government would have been held up to ridicule and contempt around Australia as the first employer to impose lockouts on its workers, and certainly the first government to impose a lockout on its workers.

I can understand why the Federal Liberal Party strategists would have realised that they could not possibly allow this to happen and would have said, "We have to get them to see a bit of sense and pull back". It is a good thing for the Territory that a bit of sense has been seen and that the Government has pulled back from this absurd posturing. Nonetheless, the situation that Mr De Domenico had brought us to on Saturday morning is fully worthy of this Opposition matter of public importance. We have been sparing in our use of MPIs this year, but this is a matter that quite properly must be debated by this chamber.

The other point that must be reinforced is Mr De Domenico's scant regard for the facts. He came in here and made big statements during question time, when he was trying to present the case, hamming it up in response to a dorothy dixer from Mr Kaine. "Up front; no strings attached; we are offering you one per cent, $7 a week; no strings attached", he said on 5 December. But it is very clear, in the letter from Mr Walker to Mr Pyner of 5 December - the day that Mr De Domenico was saying in here, "No strings attached" - that there are significant strings attached; that in order to get this $7, one per cent, no strings attached, the unions must agree to a package; and that package involved a productivity trade-off.

However, the Government has consistently put this position:

In our particular financial and budgetary circumstances -

I am obviously quoting -

wage increases should not be fully budget funded. Accordingly, pay increases must also be funded from productivity gains.

Not the $7, the one per cent, but to get the $7, the one per cent, you have to sign up to this other package; you have to sign up to the reform agenda; and you have to agree to future productivity wage increases. Productivity wage increases may be a very legitimate thing to want to negotiate over. The fact is that we are not debating the merits of that, but we are pointing out that Mr De Domenico can get up here and glibly say, "We are offering you $7 a week, one per cent, no strings attached", when he knows,

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