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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 50 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

We have a situation where four of those six work bans were offered; two were not offered. Then we have the situation presented as though there are only six work bans in place. My understanding is that there are over 100. I think that interfering in these sorts of negotiations at this stage is entirely inappropriate, and I am not prepared to support that amendment.

I do encourage the unions and the Chief Minister to make moves to settle this dispute, to go beyond the Federal election and to think of what is best for the people of Canberra, and to do it particularly in the light of the arguments I put about separating those areas where productivity actually damages the final outcome as opposed to the areas where enterprise bargaining over productivity makes good sense.

MR SPEAKER: I remind members that those who spoke to the original motion can speak to the amendment.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Training) (3.27): Mr Speaker, the Government, and especially the Chief Minister, have said on numerous occasions that if the full 9 per cent were given it would mean that some $27m extra would have to be found. Whether that is found by way of $225 per household or by way of borrowings, the ultimate effect is that Mr and Mrs Average in the community have to pay. The citizens of Canberra have to pay that amount.

One has to look at what the Government has offered in this dispute, and other speakers for the Government have mentioned this. The basic fact is that in very difficult financial times the Government has come up with some 4.3 per cent - it is about 4.1 per cent because of the amount of money lost by the Territory as a result of this dispute - which is a significant percentage in very difficult economic times and which compares very favourably with what those opposite paid in the enterprise bargaining agreements and industrial relations settlements made when they were in government last time. That offer has been made with little, if any, pain to any of the unions involved. On top of that, where is the money to be found? We have this figure of $27m which just has to be found, and we cannot get away from that.

The Government is following enterprise bargaining guidelines set down by the Opposition's Federal Labor colleagues. What the Chief Minister has said, contrary to what Mr Moore might have been indicating earlier in his speech, is that these unions are different. Teachers and nurses are very different from bus drivers. There is room for enterprise bargaining in this process. Who pays, Mr Speaker? Mr Moore has come up with a couple of suggestions there, which the Chief Minister and the Government are well aware of, in terms of the cost to the community.

Mr Moore: I have a few others, too.

MR STEFANIAK: Have you? That is good to see, Mr Moore. It is interesting that the Opposition does not. Some people have made some suggestions. Mr Haggar, from the Education Union, has said, "Yes, rates should pay for it; what is wrong with that?", when he talks of education.

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