Mr RIOLI - 1996-08-21
The Industrial Relations Commission offered the government and the teachers the opportunity to resolve their long-running dispute. All that was required was a commitment from both sides to abide by the umpire's decision. The teachers said `yes' and the Country Liberal Party administration said `no'. Why did the minister refuse to accept the umpire's decision?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, let me clarify the matter for members opposite. The union called for the meeting with the commissioner. The commissioner did no more than offer to arbitrate on a matter relating to the question of a separate Enterprise Bargaining Agreement (EBA) for the teachers.
Mr Bailey: And the starting date of backpay.
Mr FINCH: Yes. The simple fact is that the government had offered a total package, and a separate EBA was not in the total package. What the union wants to do is grab the package, with the $4.3m-worth of extras, the 7% pay rise which is due tomorrow and backdated, 10 hours release time, the contract teacher resolution, the 3-year trained resolution and remote area teacher resolution. It wanted to grab all that and come back and play another game. It wants to play soccer this time. The union wanted to get in for a second bite. The secretary of the union said on the radio the other day: `I have nothing to lose'. The union was prepared to take the gamble.
Why did the government not take a gamble on what the commissioner might or might not say? The answer is that the government is not into taking gambles. This is not a lottery.
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr FINCH: And it is not part of the enterprise bargaining process. It is quite simple and quite straightforward: there is a total package. The union has the opportunity to negotiate on the total package. It has been told by a majority of members, 2:1, that a separate EBA is not necessary. At least 1000 teachers have signed, not to mention the others who were
Page 1534
prepared to put their hand in the air and tell the union meeting that a separate EBA was unnecessary. Some 500 union members are prepared to say that they want a separate EBA. There is a big difference.
What the union spokesman said the other day was, and he was quite correct, that he was prepared to take a gamble. In fact, he said that, if the commissioner happened to say that a separate EBA was not necessary, the union would accept that. If the union could accept it then, why does it not accept it now? The point is that the union has backed itself into a corner and it does not know how to get out of it. In fact, I believe the union secretary may very well have wished secretly that the commissioner would rule against him and get him out of the corner he has worked himself into.
Page 1535
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, let me clarify the matter for members opposite. The union called for the meeting with the commissioner. The commissioner did no more than offer to arbitrate on a matter relating to the question of a separate Enterprise Bargaining Agreement (EBA) for the teachers.
Mr Bailey: And the starting date of backpay.
Mr FINCH: Yes. The simple fact is that the government had offered a total package, and a separate EBA was not in the total package. What the union wants to do is grab the package, with the $4.3m-worth of extras, the 7% pay rise which is due tomorrow and backdated, 10 hours release time, the contract teacher resolution, the 3-year trained resolution and remote area teacher resolution. It wanted to grab all that and come back and play another game. It wants to play soccer this time. The union wanted to get in for a second bite. The secretary of the union said on the radio the other day: `I have nothing to lose'. The union was prepared to take the gamble.
Why did the government not take a gamble on what the commissioner might or might not say? The answer is that the government is not into taking gambles. This is not a lottery.
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr FINCH: And it is not part of the enterprise bargaining process. It is quite simple and quite straightforward: there is a total package. The union has the opportunity to negotiate on the total package. It has been told by a majority of members, 2:1, that a separate EBA is not necessary. At least 1000 teachers have signed, not to mention the others who were
Page 1534
prepared to put their hand in the air and tell the union meeting that a separate EBA was unnecessary. Some 500 union members are prepared to say that they want a separate EBA. There is a big difference.
What the union spokesman said the other day was, and he was quite correct, that he was prepared to take a gamble. In fact, he said that, if the commissioner happened to say that a separate EBA was not necessary, the union would accept that. If the union could accept it then, why does it not accept it now? The point is that the union has backed itself into a corner and it does not know how to get out of it. In fact, I believe the union secretary may very well have wished secretly that the commissioner would rule against him and get him out of the corner he has worked himself into.
Page 1535
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016