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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 10 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

The CPI increase is 4.1 per cent; the offer on the table is 4.3 per cent - not that we suggest for one moment that wage increases should be tied to the CPI. On radio last week, Ralph Willis made the point that that is definitely what should not happen. In fact, he made the comment that wage increases in the Federal arena, in the Federal Public Service, had been virtually budget neutral because they would be traded off against productivity. That is exactly what we are attempting to achieve here. There is 4.3 per cent on the table; there is a willingness to "agency bargain" above that 4.3 per cent; the 4.3 per cent is above the inflation rate. We have been willing to give and give again.

The bans were put in place a couple of weeks ago - funnily enough, after the Federal election was called.

Mr De Domenico: It is just a coincidence.

MRS CARNELL: It is just a coincidence. All of a sudden, the negotiating that was going on falls over; bans are put in place. I said right from the beginning that we would not meet with the unions for negotiations while bans were in place. But we moved again. I said "Okay; we are willing to meet for proper negotiations if only six of the 106 bans are lifted - the six that affect the community the most". That is in line with the recommendations of the Industrial Relations Commission last Wednesday which suggested that the bans that most affect the community should be lifted. The other requirements on the Government were to provide full information to the union movement on the implementation of the triple R award, which we did on Friday, and full costings of the trade union offer, which we provided to the trade union movement on Friday, in line with the commission's recommendations.

In negotiations with Jeremy Pyner of the TLC, we determined the six bans that we believed most affected the community. We sent a letter to Jeremy Pyner last Thursday, indicating that we would be looking at commencing negotiations on Monday. The union movement had from Thursday afternoon through until Monday afternoon to organise meetings of membership to determine whether they wanted to go ahead. But they did not. In fact, the executive of the teachers union actually met on Saturday and determined more bans that they were going to put in place, not ones that they might like to lift as a result of this offer. Again we put on the table six bans out of about 106 that we believed were most central to allowing negotiations to go on.

The unions did not meet between Thursday and last night. We find out that the offer that came back just before 6 o'clock last night indicates that the unions are unwilling to lift the ban related to collecting fares on buses, a ban that has cost this community over $600,000 already. That equates to the cost of a large number of operations for people on our waiting list. We could build two child-care centres; we could do all sorts of things for that sort of money. But not only were they not willing to lift that ban but also they were not willing to lift the bans on such wonderful things as taking kids to the Canberra Show, allowing kids to go on camps, and so on. We were told last night by the teachers union that they would be willing to have a meeting, but it could be next week sometime. The whole negotiating period would be over by then.

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