Mr SETTER - 1996-05-14
There is no doubt that the so-called teachers' dispute is a very important issue in the community, to judge by comments made to my office by parents who are sick and tired of the attitude of the teachers union concerned.
Mr BAILEY: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The member for Jingili is making a statement in relation to the teachers' dispute, not asking a question.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I understand that the member for Jingili is attempting to ask his question. However, I ask that he get to the point of the question.
Mr SETTER: I am getting right to the point now, Mr Speaker.
The Minister for Public Employment is one of the ministers who has carriage of this matter. What are the implications for Territorians of the admission by the national secretary of the Australian Education Union that the teachers' dispute in the Northern Territory is, in reality, part of a national union campaign for a 15% across-the-board wage rise?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, the member for Jingili is perfectly correct in his interpretation that parents and students and a significant number of teachers have had enough. They want this matter brought to a head. I would ask honourable members to use a little logic and commonsense to ascertain why this 13-month-old dispute has not yet been resolved. It is not because of the compromises made by government almost all the way through the entire process, including agreement to 3 more items brought out of left field just 2 weeks ago. One has to ask why it has not been possible to resolve the dispute.
This is a dispute that had nothing to do with pay, remember? For 12 of the last 13 months, it was said that it had nothing whatsoever to do with pay. The propaganda was that it was not about money. This morning, we have heard from the Chief Minister a verbatim quote from the federal secretary. There was no equivocation in the words used there.
Mr Stirling: You blokes forget that you gave them 4% a little over 2 years ago.
Page 1328
Mr FINCH: I will give you all that.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr FINCH: I quote the federal secretary, Mr Durbridge: 'The Territory is part of a national push by the AEU to achieve a 15% outcome from enterprise bargaining'.
The member for Nhulunbuy interjected to ask about the 4% that has been paid already. I ask the honourable member, and the teachers union and those in the community who are misrepresenting the facts, why they ignore the fact that, when that 4% increase was granted in the Northern Territory, it was done ahead of every state. It put the Territory in front for a significant period of time. Why do they ignore the fact that, at least for that period, Territorian teachers were right at the top of the tree, and they were there on their own?
Mr Stirling: Were they?
Mr FINCH: Yes, they were, at that stage.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr FINCH: You persist in talking about Western Australia. For the 5 months between August 1995 and January of this year, Territory teachers at the top of the automatic incremental scale would have been receiving $3000-odd more than WA teachers. Those teachers received a 2.5% increase in January which put them $2000 behind Territorians. Why do members opposite persist in ignoring that? Why do they ignore the fact that, if Territorian teachers had accepted the 3% available last August when they had the opportunity, they would have been $3000 ahead of Western Australia teachers now? Why do they ignore the fact that, if the teachers had signed then, or were even to sign now, come August this year, they would still be $2000 ahead of WA teachers until January of next year? The 15% that the member for Nhulunbuy keeps crowing about for Western Australia was for 1995, 1996 and 1997. Members opposite ignore the fact that, in Western Australia, teachers have then to wait another year, from January 1997 to January 1998, before their rates are reviewed again. If they were locked in there, pay for Territory teachers would be reviewed - with, one would assume, another increment - in the middle of next year. Thus, again, Western Australia would be only 1.8% ahead, given this magnificent rise that everyone is talking about, at the top end of the scale. One would assume that, from the middle of next year, Territory teachers would again be at the front of the pack.
Why do the members opposite and the teachers union ignore the fact that, on the sixth increment of the scale, Western Australians must have 15 years experience before they proceed, compared to 12 years in the Northern Territory? Why do they ignore the fact that Territory teachers get to that top scale 3 years ahead of those in Western Australia? Why do they ignore also the fact that, in the Territory, we introduced an allowance of $1300 and that some 680 teachers are receiving that Territory allowance? Why do they persist in ignoring the $1300 that comes in a significant proportion of teachers' pay packets? Why do they ignore the fact that, at the same time as we introduced this Territory allowance, we introduced the most innovative master teacher program in the country? I allow that Western Australia has one as well, which is the equivalent of master teacher program and pays about $1200. Why are
Page 1329
Territorian education union officials and the Labor Party members opposite ignoring the fact that the first level of master teacher, of whom we have 242, was voted 7.5% or $3000 extra? For master II teachers, of whom we have 68, the vote was $4800 extra. For master III teachers, it was $7853 extra. This compares with Western Australia's single-scale allowance of $1200. Who is being unreasonable when it comes to salary claims? We did not hear much about this until recent times ...
Mr Bailey: What about the separate EBA?
Mr FINCH: About 9 weeks ago, when I had the 2 union officials come to talk to me about finding a solution, they put to me 3 matters, as well as the issue of a separate EBA. In relation to the separate EBA, we agreed to disagree on our position.
Mr Bailey: They have not agreed to disagree at all.
Mr FINCH: I disagreed totally.
Mr Bailey: They still want it.
Mr FINCH: Of course they do. I disagreed totally - firstly, that they would get it, and secondly, as to their rationale on why they should have it. They should ask their Canberra colleagues in the teachers union, who belong to a similar-sized public service, why they are fighting to get into the public service agreement - a single enterprise agreement. Where is the logic? Where is there one condition of service or one aspect of salary increases that acknowledges teachers and that cannot be incorporated in a single enterprise agreement? There is not one item that cannot be included in an addendum to the single enterprise agreement.
Because we agreed to disagree, we went through the other 3 items: tick, tick, tick. The president of the union let the cat out of the bag on his agenda in relation to the national campaign. We heard the federal secretary acknowledge it. There is no logic to the continuation of this dispute, other than that Territorian teachers are not allowed to agree to a salary rise - particularly one less than 15% cumulative - until the other states' claims are finalised. We had as evidence of that what the president let out of the bag. We held fire on that information. Then, just the other day, the federal secretary confirmed exactly what we believed to be the case. When looking at the original submission ...
Mr Stirling: Will you be happy to stand here in another 8 months and tell us this again?
Mr FINCH: We will not be talking about this here in another 8 months. I can tell members that this matter will be brought to a head.
If members look at the claims made by the AEU in its submission to the commissioner, they will see among them non-Territory-related issues that are purely part of the national agenda. It is absolutely clear that Territorian students, teachers and parents are being held to ransom as part of this national campaign.
Mr Bailey: Don't you think it has anything to do with Territory education?
Page 1330
Mr FINCH: We go to the back of the line in a totally unreasonable set of circumstances. Territory teachers are the best paid and have the best classroom sizes. The Territory has the highest expenditure per student. There is not an issue that members opposite can raise that we have not addressed.
Page 1331
Mr BAILEY: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The member for Jingili is making a statement in relation to the teachers' dispute, not asking a question.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I understand that the member for Jingili is attempting to ask his question. However, I ask that he get to the point of the question.
Mr SETTER: I am getting right to the point now, Mr Speaker.
The Minister for Public Employment is one of the ministers who has carriage of this matter. What are the implications for Territorians of the admission by the national secretary of the Australian Education Union that the teachers' dispute in the Northern Territory is, in reality, part of a national union campaign for a 15% across-the-board wage rise?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, the member for Jingili is perfectly correct in his interpretation that parents and students and a significant number of teachers have had enough. They want this matter brought to a head. I would ask honourable members to use a little logic and commonsense to ascertain why this 13-month-old dispute has not yet been resolved. It is not because of the compromises made by government almost all the way through the entire process, including agreement to 3 more items brought out of left field just 2 weeks ago. One has to ask why it has not been possible to resolve the dispute.
This is a dispute that had nothing to do with pay, remember? For 12 of the last 13 months, it was said that it had nothing whatsoever to do with pay. The propaganda was that it was not about money. This morning, we have heard from the Chief Minister a verbatim quote from the federal secretary. There was no equivocation in the words used there.
Mr Stirling: You blokes forget that you gave them 4% a little over 2 years ago.
Page 1328
Mr FINCH: I will give you all that.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr FINCH: I quote the federal secretary, Mr Durbridge: 'The Territory is part of a national push by the AEU to achieve a 15% outcome from enterprise bargaining'.
The member for Nhulunbuy interjected to ask about the 4% that has been paid already. I ask the honourable member, and the teachers union and those in the community who are misrepresenting the facts, why they ignore the fact that, when that 4% increase was granted in the Northern Territory, it was done ahead of every state. It put the Territory in front for a significant period of time. Why do they ignore the fact that, at least for that period, Territorian teachers were right at the top of the tree, and they were there on their own?
Mr Stirling: Were they?
Mr FINCH: Yes, they were, at that stage.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr FINCH: You persist in talking about Western Australia. For the 5 months between August 1995 and January of this year, Territory teachers at the top of the automatic incremental scale would have been receiving $3000-odd more than WA teachers. Those teachers received a 2.5% increase in January which put them $2000 behind Territorians. Why do members opposite persist in ignoring that? Why do they ignore the fact that, if Territorian teachers had accepted the 3% available last August when they had the opportunity, they would have been $3000 ahead of Western Australia teachers now? Why do they ignore the fact that, if the teachers had signed then, or were even to sign now, come August this year, they would still be $2000 ahead of WA teachers until January of next year? The 15% that the member for Nhulunbuy keeps crowing about for Western Australia was for 1995, 1996 and 1997. Members opposite ignore the fact that, in Western Australia, teachers have then to wait another year, from January 1997 to January 1998, before their rates are reviewed again. If they were locked in there, pay for Territory teachers would be reviewed - with, one would assume, another increment - in the middle of next year. Thus, again, Western Australia would be only 1.8% ahead, given this magnificent rise that everyone is talking about, at the top end of the scale. One would assume that, from the middle of next year, Territory teachers would again be at the front of the pack.
Why do the members opposite and the teachers union ignore the fact that, on the sixth increment of the scale, Western Australians must have 15 years experience before they proceed, compared to 12 years in the Northern Territory? Why do they ignore the fact that Territory teachers get to that top scale 3 years ahead of those in Western Australia? Why do they ignore also the fact that, in the Territory, we introduced an allowance of $1300 and that some 680 teachers are receiving that Territory allowance? Why do they persist in ignoring the $1300 that comes in a significant proportion of teachers' pay packets? Why do they ignore the fact that, at the same time as we introduced this Territory allowance, we introduced the most innovative master teacher program in the country? I allow that Western Australia has one as well, which is the equivalent of master teacher program and pays about $1200. Why are
Page 1329
Territorian education union officials and the Labor Party members opposite ignoring the fact that the first level of master teacher, of whom we have 242, was voted 7.5% or $3000 extra? For master II teachers, of whom we have 68, the vote was $4800 extra. For master III teachers, it was $7853 extra. This compares with Western Australia's single-scale allowance of $1200. Who is being unreasonable when it comes to salary claims? We did not hear much about this until recent times ...
Mr Bailey: What about the separate EBA?
Mr FINCH: About 9 weeks ago, when I had the 2 union officials come to talk to me about finding a solution, they put to me 3 matters, as well as the issue of a separate EBA. In relation to the separate EBA, we agreed to disagree on our position.
Mr Bailey: They have not agreed to disagree at all.
Mr FINCH: I disagreed totally.
Mr Bailey: They still want it.
Mr FINCH: Of course they do. I disagreed totally - firstly, that they would get it, and secondly, as to their rationale on why they should have it. They should ask their Canberra colleagues in the teachers union, who belong to a similar-sized public service, why they are fighting to get into the public service agreement - a single enterprise agreement. Where is the logic? Where is there one condition of service or one aspect of salary increases that acknowledges teachers and that cannot be incorporated in a single enterprise agreement? There is not one item that cannot be included in an addendum to the single enterprise agreement.
Because we agreed to disagree, we went through the other 3 items: tick, tick, tick. The president of the union let the cat out of the bag on his agenda in relation to the national campaign. We heard the federal secretary acknowledge it. There is no logic to the continuation of this dispute, other than that Territorian teachers are not allowed to agree to a salary rise - particularly one less than 15% cumulative - until the other states' claims are finalised. We had as evidence of that what the president let out of the bag. We held fire on that information. Then, just the other day, the federal secretary confirmed exactly what we believed to be the case. When looking at the original submission ...
Mr Stirling: Will you be happy to stand here in another 8 months and tell us this again?
Mr FINCH: We will not be talking about this here in another 8 months. I can tell members that this matter will be brought to a head.
If members look at the claims made by the AEU in its submission to the commissioner, they will see among them non-Territory-related issues that are purely part of the national agenda. It is absolutely clear that Territorian students, teachers and parents are being held to ransom as part of this national campaign.
Mr Bailey: Don't you think it has anything to do with Territory education?
Page 1330
Mr FINCH: We go to the back of the line in a totally unreasonable set of circumstances. Territory teachers are the best paid and have the best classroom sizes. The Territory has the highest expenditure per student. There is not an issue that members opposite can raise that we have not addressed.
Page 1331
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016