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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 11 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

Of the six bans, they were willing to lift only four. Interestingly, they did not actually say that they were totally willing to lift those bans. They said that they were "willing to lift them wherever possible". We did not even get a total undertaking that they would be lifted. On that basis, and taking into account that I had told the union movement yesterday that I had another offer to put on the table last night so that they were aware that we were acting in good faith, they would not come to the party last night. It would appear to me that the Government has moved from an offer of 1.3 per cent per annum, with agency specific productivity bargaining, to a whole-of-government offer of 4.3 per cent, with capacity for agency specific productivity bargaining above the 4.3 per cent. We have moved to a 4.3 per cent offer right across the Government Service, with capacity for enterprise specific bargaining on top of that. By the way, all the lists drawn up by the Government of the areas in which we see that those negotiations could take place were knocked back by the unions.

We said, "We will negotiate on the basis of six of 106 bans being lifted as a sign of good faith". We told the union movement, "We have another offer to put on the table if you lift six of the 106 bans". We have met with them. We have done everything in our power to achieve an outcome to this situation; but what we will not do is what the Opposition did when they were in government, that is, end up with wage increases that had to be funded out of the budget because productivity was not delivered, and end up with enormous problems in the education and health budgets. That is what those opposite did. The nurses still have not delivered the 2 per cent productivity for the last wage increases, because those opposite did not require them to do so. Similar things happened with the 6.4 per cent increase in wages for teachers. No productivity was achieved. What happened? It put pressure on the budget this year. We will not do that.

A 9 per cent, fully budget funded pay increase would cost this community $27m. However you look at that, $27m has to come out of the taxpayers' pockets. That is $225 for every household in this city.

Mr Berry: That is a lie.

MRS CARNELL: That is actually true.

Mr De Domenico: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Mr Berry should withdraw that immediately and never use it again.

Mr Berry: I withdraw it, Mr Speaker. It is completely untrue.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Berry, I am sure that you will have the opportunity to put your point of view very shortly.

MRS CARNELL: (Extension of time granted) That $27m is in excess of what we have already budgeted for wage increases, which is $12m. It is not as if we budgeted nothing. The $12m is already in there. The rest was supposed to be productivity based. You realise that the unions are willing to "productivity base" above 9 per cent, just not under 9 per cent. That is where we stand at this stage.

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