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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 22 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

In terms of the process, I have heard the saga of the meetings that have been held. I have heard the other side of that. I do not think it is particularly fruitful even to try to go into who is right and who is wrong on that. The point right now is that you have to find a solution. If four out of six concessions were made and you wanted six out of six, so what? Let us just get on with this.

Mr Humphries: Six out of 100.

MS TUCKER: Yes, I understand that; but the point is that they have made a concession. We are here today. They were here last night. We want to find a resolution, and that is why I have moved that we add that fourth paragraph. Let us just get on and have more discussions about this. I am sure that there is room for movement. I am sure that there is room for movement by the Government also because I am sure that both parties are making ambit claims. Is that not how negotiations work?

In closing, Mr De Domenico is talking about the blockade and how that is such an affront to him. That sort of action was taken as a last resort. I respect the right of unions to take that resort if they feel that things have reached a dead end. I do not think that this Government has understood the rights of the unions throughout this process. I see what comes through on the e-mail and I can tell you that it looks confrontationalist. You can deny that it is, but that is certainly how it looks. A good manager would not do that. We keep hearing from the Liberal Government about good management. One of the performance indicators I saw in the Estimates Committee was industrial harmony and good industrial relations. You are failing there and you need to look at why, and work more constructively. Perhaps you should reconsider the bottom line that you say is immovable, because that is your political decision.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (11.56): Mr Speaker, obviously people who are outside it have been observing what has gone on in this industrial dispute. It is clear that members of this place and members of the public will have a very wide capacity to determine different points of view, based on what they have seen of this dispute. I might say that it is extremely dangerous for people who have not been part of the process, who do not understand the kinds of tactical games that people play and have not been involved with these sorts of things - - -

Ms Follett: Starting with Mrs Carnell.

MR HUMPHRIES: That is not true. If Ms Follett says that she has never been involved in a negotiation where trade unions have not played those sorts of tactical games, then I think that she is trying to mislead people in this place. Those games are played and it is very hard for people who have not been part of those negotiations to determine exactly what the dynamics of those things are.

The Government, in a very real sense, has its back against the wall. This is a mistake that the union movement has made in the way in which it has approached this issue. The Government just does not have the flexibility to accede to an unfunded, non-productivity-linked increase above the amount that we have already offered to the trade union movement. Members opposite obviously dispute that assertion. I think the Greens, to be fair to them, have accepted that this is true; but they have said to us,

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