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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 7 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 1936 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

It is not only students and parents who are being affected by this; teachers are being affected by it also. They have respected the call of their union, as they ought to do; but they know that, in so doing, the job they do is having to suffer because they are not performing that full range of duties that have traditionally been part of what teachers do. So, all in all, school education this year has been very bad as a direct result of these bans. I see no evidence on the part of the Government that it really wants to get down and solve these bans.

The dispute has gone on now for a very long time. I do not see Mr Stefaniak sitting down - perhaps he has done it - and, as he ought to be doing, harassing the union every day, encouraging them, appealing to them, saying, "Let us get together. How far can we go?". He seems to be stalling. The fact is, as other speakers from this side of the house have said, that the Government has a responsibility. It cannot simply stand up there at all times and blame the teachers or blame the teachers union. You have a responsibility. You are the particular Minister, and you ought to be doing a great deal more than you have done to get our schools back to the situation where parents and teachers can get together, where teachers can work with those kids across a full range of activities, as they always have done, and where the educational outcomes for our schools are as high as they have been in the past and not in the pits, as they are now.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (4.42): Mr Speaker, I do not want to speak for long on this matter. Ms Tucker can have a go in a minute. But let me just say that I have no doubt that the outcome of this particular motion was determined well before the motion was ever put on the floor of the Assembly. Mr Moore's position is well known. Mr Berry, of course, has moved the motion.

Mrs Carnell: He is not here, and has not been for the whole debate.

MR HUMPHRIES: That is a point worth noting. Mr Berry has not been here for almost the entire debate on the motion that he moved. He claims to be, as the industrial relations spokesman, interested in this issue. We have not actually seen him here on the floor of the chamber for this industrial relations debate. I do not think he is interested in education, except to use it as an opportunity to kick the Government in the head.

Mr Speaker, I must say that, if this motion had been moved by Mr Moore, it would have had a little more weight than one moved by Mr Berry. Why? Because the Labor Party itself has absolutely no basis on which to come into this place, point to anybody else and make accusations about their performance in respect of industrial relations in the education field, or anywhere else, for that matter. Their own record in this area is quite appalling. Members only need to cast their minds back about three years to see what was happening under Mr Wood, who has come up and lectured us today. Mr Wood pointed a finger at Mr Stefaniak, saying, "You do not realise what is going on. We do not think you understand what education is all about". Mr Wood had a very severe industrial problem on his hands a few years ago when he had the problem of trying to cut 90 teachers out of the system.

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