Page 459 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 8 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
teacher-student contact period over a whole week. That will not lead to a decrease in teaching numbers in primary schools.
It is important to say that no current teacher would lose their job under the New South Wales parity offer. It is true that the New South Wales offer may lead to a reduction in relief teachers in high schools and colleges because the workload of teachers would be increased by two hours of student-teacher contact per week. The relief budget at the moment stands at around $12 million a year; so there would be an impact on the relief budget if permanent teachers were to adopt the New South Wales condition of about 20 to 20½ student-teacher contact hours a week.
The AEU also suggests that there have been unacceptable delays in the government putting an offer to the teachers. The ACT government tried to put this offer formally to the AEU executive last year. In fact, twice last year the AEU asked that the government delay making this offer, due to the timing being inconvenient for the AEU in the lead-up to school holidays. This offer could have been made last year and the dispute could have been resolved well before the commencement of this academic year.
The AEU also claim that the government has not met with the AEU. In fact, I met with the AEU in December before I went on maternity leave and, further, in my absence the Chief Minister, as acting minister for education, met with the AEU in February. We tried to make an offer before February but it is clear that the AEU did not want that to happen. We have met with the AEU twice since that time. We have put two alternative offers to the AEU, both of which appear to have been rejected. I will not be meeting with the AEU whilst teachers are engaging in strike action and threatening further industrial action. ACT teachers enjoy the highest and most generous superannuation in the country.
The AEU claim that New South Wales and Victorian teachers can salary sacrifice for superannuation. It is certainly the case in Victoria that they can salary sacrifice super but they also earn 12 to 14 per cent less than teachers here in the territory. New South Wales teachers cannot salary sacrifice super. In fact, it is unclear as to whether those teachers will be able to salary sacrifice super under their current agreement, as drafting for varying the legislation in New South Wales does not appear to have even commenced. So there is no disparity between arrangements around superannuation.
At the moment, the minimum a teacher is paid in super is 15.4 per cent, but the average is closer to 17.2 per cent for all teachers. That is a significant cost to the employer—not one borne by New South Wales. We need the teachers to seriously look at both offers on the table to avoid the industrial action that appears to be being organised regardless of any effort by the government to resolve this dispute prior to next Tuesday.
MS PORTER: Mr Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Minister, the AEU has suggested that parity with New South Wales is necessary because, under the government’s initial offer, ACT teachers will fall behind their New South Wales counterparts over the next three years and recruitment will be impossible for ACT government schools. Is this correct?
MS GALLAGHER: Again, unfortunately the claims by the AEU are not entirely correct. If the three per cent offer we have made is accepted, ACT teachers will still be the best paid teachers in the country. In fact, at almost every salary point along the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .