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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 7 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 1927 ..

Mr Moore: Hear, hear!

MR STEFANIAK: Mr Moore says, "Hear hear!". That is exactly what the Government is keen to do. Mr Speaker, this Government has made a number of offers. Mr Moore was part of this process initially. The first offer, which Michael Moore was well and truly part of and which he assisted with, was actually rejected by the AEU, in part because they did not want to break ranks with the rest of their Public Service colleagues. The rest of their Public Service colleagues have all accepted agreements with the Government. Those agreements are based to varying degrees on 7.1 per cent Government funded over 30 months and some productivity. Mr Speaker, it is interesting to note that in New South Wales the Government has offered to fully fund 7.1 per cent. They are also after productivity gains. They are talking about 21/2 to 3 per cent productivity gains. They are also at loggerheads with the teachers union. The situation there is very similar in many respects.

Mr Speaker, quite clearly, the Government is keen to have the dispute resolved. If the Government was not keen to have it resolved, we would not have attempted to get into the Industrial Relations Commission. That at least gives an indication of some light at the end of the tunnel. That is not to indicate that an agreement cannot be reached before then. Discussions are still continuing. I certainly hope that those discussions prove fruitful. If we can come to some arrangement - and the Government is certainly trying, Mr Moore; that is for sure - then the dispute can end. The dispute has gone on for far too long. The only people suffering are our students.

Mr Berry talked in very stern terms about any type of strike breaking, about scabs and about people remembering back to 1891; but I note that some banned activities are still going on in schools. So the bans are not being totally effective, but they are certainly - - -

Mr Moore: Why is that?

MR STEFANIAK: Because some teachers, Mr Moore, obviously feel that their kids come first, and they are actually prepared to go against the bans in some instances. We need to consider all the types of activities that these bans are affecting. These bans prevent kids in primary schools from enjoying camps, interschool sport, extension programs such as Tournament of the Minds, excursions and socials. In high schools and colleges excursions, camps - including peer support camps - sporting trips, drama productions, rock eisteddfods, Duke of Edinburgh Award activities, socials and, probably even more damaging than the interstate sport singled out by Mr Berry, work experience placements, including Australian vocational training scheme courses, are affected.

I think the union should lift the ban on work experience placements. The P and C seem particularly concerned about that because it affects kids' chances of getting jobs as well as their chances for training and accreditation. That is a very serious ban. I really think members should take note of what the P and C says. I think that is terribly important. They want all bans that affect students lifted. (Extension of time granted) Quite clearly, the P and C want bans that affect students and parents lifted in the public interest.

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