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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 11 Hansard (20 October) . . Page.. 3350 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

taking industrial action. It is simply that, when action is taken, the employer cannot pay them, and cannot pay them for the time of that action. It is as simple as that, and to suggest now that the department or the Government should pay back the money is really asking the department and the Government to do something that is unlawful.

We had a debate here not long ago in relation to the Bruce Stadium, where people were having a go at the Chief Minister because they suggested she was acting unlawfully. Well, you cannot have one standard for one and not for the other, Mr Speaker. I think that is just crazy. Indeed, it is quite preposterous. If this motion were passed, the Assembly would be sending a message to the rest of the ACT Public Service, and indeed the whole community, that industrial action can be taken with impunity, and without employees suffering any consequences as a result.

In the past, people have taken industrial action, and no doubt will continue to do so when they are dissatisfied. That is a democratic right which I am sure we would all fight for. That is one of the tenets of our civilised Western democracy. But there are consequences, and that is fair enough. I do not think anyone quibbles with that. I think Mr Berry is being hypocritical here, because there was industrial action under the Labor Government. I have got some figures here in terms of education. On 23 September 1993, 1,102 work days were docked from teachers taking industrial action;1,917 work days were docked from teachers on 28 October 1993 for taking industrial action. That was over cuts to staffing. I bet they did not get their money back.

It is hypocritical of Mr Berry and the Labor Party to bring a motion such as this. If Mr Berry's motion were to succeed we would have a recipe for industrial chaos. Thankfully, due to the commitment of government, and the approach taken by my department based on a genuine commitment to reach a fair agreement with the bursars, we are now very close to reaching an agreement with bursars on their working conditions and remuneration. Mr Berry talks about the department stuffing it up all the way along, never wanting to compromise, always wanting to force them into this position. I think that is a bit of nonsense.

Mr Speaker, there were, I think, two out of four meetings, which were due to be held between June and July in relation to this dispute, when the CPSU representative did not turn up. If he wants to point the blame he can probably point it all around if he wants to be fair. And now, Mr Speaker, we are very close to an agreement. I think it is important members note that the department has always been keen to progress discussions on bursars' working conditions. The CPSU failed on several occasions leading up to the industrial action to actually attend those scheduled meetings, and that stalled negotiations.

The Government is certainly committed to continuing the discussions, and the department met with the union while industrial action was in progress. In fact, I met with the union and some bursars on an occasion as well. The fact that they were continuing to meet while the industrial action was in progress is indicative of good faith.

Mr Berry: Oh!

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