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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2170 ..

MR STEFANIAK: I thank the member for the question, Mr Speaker. Again, that is one of the things on the table in terms of enterprise bargaining. We have certain rates here in the ACT. There are certain proposals being discussed with the union and, as Ms Reilly no doubt is aware, there are certain rates paid interstate. That is one of the points of discussion currently under way with the Australian Education Union. Again, if certain agreements are reached in relation to that issue, there may well be some savings there; but again it is a matter for discussion and it is something that has to be agreed upon. I would point out that certain categories of our relief teachers are paid very well indeed - much better in some instances than their interstate counterparts. Those are the sorts of issues that enterprise bargaining is all about. Those are the sorts of possible trade-offs that can be made. Those are the things that are the subject of discussion between the AEU and the Government.

MS REILLY: In the discussions and consideration of a loss of income for the relief teachers, surely you must have considered how much you would save. How much are you going to save by attacking these vulnerable casual workers in the education system?

MR STEFANIAK: Ms Reilly, it depends on exactly what figure we come up with. How long is a piece of string? It would be very different, for example, if, say, instead of being $190 at the top of the range it was $180 or $165, which I think it is in New South Wales. It would be considerably different if it was what it is for other categories of teachers. That, again, is something that is part and parcel of the negotiations. How much exactly would be saved, how much would be tacked on to the productivity if that is included in any ultimate agreement with the AEU, is a matter for further negotiation and agreement. It would vary considerably, depending on what was actually paid. Obviously, Ms Reilly, if a figure less than what we are paying now is agreed on, that would generate some savings. I reiterate that it is a matter for negotiations.

MS TUCKER: My question is to Mr Humphries as Attorney-General. Mr Humphries, in response to a question I asked in the Assembly on 14 April - - -

Mr Berry: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would you call the house to order so that we can all listen to the question and to the answer?

MR SPEAKER: There is no point of order, but I am rather amazed at the audacity of the comment. Ms Tucker, please proceed.

MS TUCKER: You must have a particular interest in the issue, Mr Berry. Mr Humphries, in response to a question I asked in the Assembly on 14 April about if and when the Government would implement the Community Law Reform Committee's report on domestic violence, you replied that the Government would table some kind of response by the mid-year break or very soon after. I understand that there is significant community support for this report to be implemented in full as a comprehensive strategy to tackle domestic violence in the ACT. Mr Humphries, when will the Government's response be ready, and I ask again whether the Government is committed to implementing it in full?

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