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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 49 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

There has been a great argument for the Chief Minister to come into this house and state publicly that the only way she can deliver this 9 per cent pay rise, if it is delivered through the budget, is by a $225 average increase in rates. It is a lie. It is a lie to say that the only way it can be delivered is by a $225 increase in rates. There is a whole series of alternatives. This is the same Government that has just cut payroll tax. It is the same Government that has effectively delivered over $10m, in their own rhetoric, to the business sector. The question has to be asked: Whom do you value more highly, your children or the business sector? That is what it is coming down to - a question of priorities.

Mr Humphries: That is unfair, Michael.

MR MOORE: Mr Humphries interjects, "That is unfair". It is just as unfair as saying that the only way to pay for this is a $225 hike in rates. That is the trouble. Yet another way to pay for it is to look at the fact that we are paying some people in this Government Service over $200,000. We are looking at chief executives getting huge salary increases, and ordinary workers must ask the question, "Why is it that somebody can get a 10 per cent increase, and that 10 per cent is in the order of $15,000 to $20,000; whereas what we are looking for is an increase of 9 per cent, which will really deliver something in the order of $5,000 or $6,000?". There are great questions that still need to be answered.

What can be done? Mr Osborne and I certainly attempted to move amendments to the budget. Indeed, just today I offered yet again to the Labor Party, and I discussed it with Ms Follett, that I am still prepared to move an amendment to the budget at this stage to increase the funding to education. Mr Osborne tells me that he is also prepared to move amendments to the budget to increase the funding to cater for this particular area, where productivity gains in financial terms will mean loss of benefit in terms of service delivery to the community, damage to the future of our children and damage to patient care. (Extension of time granted)

What we have here is a question of priorities, and the Carnell Government has demonstrated quite clearly that its priorities lie more closely with business than they do with our children. They have made it very clear that that is where their priorities lie. It seems to me that there are solutions here and that those solutions can be reached; but the particular motion that calls on me to censure the Chief Minister, amongst others, for failure to negotiate in good faith is not a motion I am prepared to support. We also have an amendment by Ms Tucker. The Greens seem to think that with this sort of amendment they will get the unions on side. I have news for them. Nothing they do will get the unions on side. The amendment states:

... ... ...

(4) in light of the failure of the Government to fulfil its duties as an employer ... calls on the Government to accept the unions offer regarding lifting of work bans and immediately recommence enterprise bargaining ...

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