Page 367 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 7 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
of the agreement. Certainly, on the wages side and the money we have put aside to pay those wages, there won’t be any movement on that.
MS MacDONALD: Minister, what steps is the government taking to resolve this dispute and thereby prevent any industrial action which you have just mentioned?
MS GALLAGHER: Thank you, Ms MacDonald, for the supplementary question. As I have said, we have put forward this offer to the AEU. The government believes this offer is fair, reasonable, affordable and generous. We are not in a position to increase this offer without seeking to change the current conditions that teachers enjoy.
If we look at the facts, the facts are that ACT government teachers are paid more by way of remuneration than teachers in any other state or territory. The government’s offer will maintain this position. On salary alone, the majority of ACT government classroom teachers will be better off than their New South Wales counterparts under the government’s offer. That is on salary alone.
Any government teacher leaving the ACT to teach in another state or territory would immediately be worse off in terms of employers’ superannuation paid to them. If they went to New South Wales, this would be a minimum of 6.4 per cent. Any graduate choosing to commence work in another state or territory would immediately be accepting a payment of lower superannuation contribution.
Based on financial considerations only, no current ACT government teacher can afford to leave our system for another state or territory. ACT teachers on the top classroom teachers’ salary will be paid a minimum of $3,500 more than their New South Wales counterparts over the three years of the agreement.
Contrary to claims by the AEU, New South Wales and Victoria’s superannuation contributions stand at nine per cent. ACT employer contributions stand at a minimum of 15.4 per cent. In New South Wales, there is no capacity to salary sacrifice superannuation contributions. It is debatable whether this will occur in the life of this agreement. That is one of the arguments that the AEU have been putting forward. The situation is that they cannot salary sacrifice and cannot benefit from the argument that has been put forward.
In the interests of seeking resolution to the teachers dispute, the government is prepared to consider New South Wales parity as an alternative resolution. That is the argument that the AEU would like—four per cent per annum. We will consider that as an alternative resolution to avoid this strike action, but it will be New South Wales parity on pay and conditions. The only way that we can deliver their wage increases is if they accept New South Wales parity across the board. We will be happy to settle on either offer.
Importantly, if teachers accepted the New South Wales parity argument in its entirety, it would come at no extra cost to the taxpayer. There is no problem there if the teachers want to consider that. That is where things stand at the moment. They can accept the three per cent per annum across the board, with no changes to conditions, or they can consider the New South Wales parity package. This is something that they have argued for for some time. It essentially meets their demands.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .