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

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

MR DE (continuing):

What did the unions do? They virtually stuck two fingers up and said, "No; go and get lost. We will do four out of six if it is at all possible". Then they use the excuse, "Listen, we are going to have to get all our members together and ask them first". They did not get all their members together and ask them before they went on strike but - - -

Ms Follett: They did so.

MR DE DOMENICO: They did not. If you believe them you do not know what you are talking about. What Mr Berry did not say, and what this mob opposite do not realise, Mr Speaker, is this: Any pay increase over and above what is funded through the budget, or over and above what we can give in return for productivity, will be funded eventually by the community. It is all about costing the community, the very people out there whom members opposite purport to represent when they talk about social justice. They are the people who ultimately will be paying for this.

Ms Follett came up with this marvellous idea of saying, "Let us not build schools; let us get the money that you have set aside for something else; we can stop this dispute by caving in and giving people the 9 per cent pay increase". Nine per cent is too much. This community cannot afford 9 per cent. It is bad industrial relations for us to just buckle under. This Government will not do that. Our doors have always been open and always will be open. We ask the unions to take heed of what the Industrial Relations Commission said. If they are prepared to follow the rulings of the umpire when he blows his whistle, so is this Government.

MS TUCKER (11.49): Mr Speaker, I move the amendment circulated in my name, which reads:

That the following paragraph be added to the motion:

"(4) in light of the failure of the Government to fulfil its duties as an employer which has resulted in industrial unrest, calls on the Government to accept the unions offer regarding lifting of work bans and immediately recommence enterprise bargaining negotiations with the union movement.".

After listening to the debate this morning I will start off by saying that the Greens are going to support this censure motion and, obviously, we are adding a paragraph to it. The discussion has been focused very much, on the part of the Liberal Government, on the claim that this is all about money; that this is about problems in the health budget and in the education budget. The question which keeps being asked across the floor is, "How would you pay?". I have to support what was said earlier in the debate: That political decisions were made by this Government; that they would have a three-year budget, but it would end up $20m-odd in surplus at the end of that time, and that was a financial management plan. Throughout the Estimates Committee hearings we were very concerned about their clear lack of an understanding of how they were going to cost particular community service obligations within the budget. We saw that they were so interested in this financial management plan and that they had faith that the community would benefit in the long run from this tight fiscal policy.

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