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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 7 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 1930 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

There are lots of reasons why teachers will not do that. Indeed, that was one of the things I suggested to teachers - along with this misconception that you now like to present about when I sat down and tried to assist you in making an offer to the teachers. Why did I try to assist you in making an offer to the teachers, and what was it about? The first thing I said to you as we sat down around the table with the CEO from Education, the Chief Minister and perhaps another officer from Education, was that these are not necessarily things I agree with but you should put them to the union. I do not mind saying that I thought this matter should go to the union, although I believed that the union had incorrectly aligned itself with all the other unions and with the TLC movement. I have told them that.

I have made it very public that I thought that that was a poor move on the part of the Australian Education Union. Why? Because the rest of the unions were able to make productivity gains without them having this secondary effect on other people. The teachers union was never able to do that. That is why teachers can never have the level of productivity trade-off that we are talking about. They have looked for productivity trade-offs and they are prepared to put them on the table. We are looking at a level of about 2 per cent, not the sorts of levels you are talking about. The failure of this Minister and the Chief Minister to understand this, to recognise this and to include it in their budget is the reason why I have made it very clear and very public, as I stated in this house, that, unless there is a settlement with the teachers, when it comes around to budget time I will be voting against the education line in the budget. I am not moving from that position at all. I have made that position firm, and I am making it even stronger by saying it in this house today.

Then the Minister tried to misrepresent the P and C Council's media release. The P and C Council's media release very clearly pointed the finger at both the Government and the AEU. Mr Stefaniak tried to create the impression in this house - it was just an impression, although I think I said "misrepresented" - that the P and C Council was telling the union to act in a certain way, which is consistent perhaps with this amendment that he has moved. But, in fact, that is not what the P and C Council said at all. It said:

The current standoff, in which the Government is refusing to improve its budget-funded offer and the Union is refusing to discuss any productivity tradeoffs, is untenable.

The current position is untenable. Then it went on to say that the dispute should be resolved. It said:

We strongly urge the Government to improve the budget-funded component of its pay offer -

that is what the P and C Council is telling you to do because it knows the impact that it has on the teachers -

and the Union to agree that any further increases beyond this should be based on productivity improvements.

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