Legislative Council
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
23 August, 1988 COUNCIL 22 1 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Tuesday, 23 August, 1988 The President took the chair at 2.30 p.m. The President offered the Prayers. PETITIONS Education Policies The Hon. J. H. Jobling presented a petition requesting that the Minister for Education reconsi'der funding changes to class 4 schools and praying that this House consider the effect on teachers and on the standard of education of such funding changes within class 4 schools. Petition received. Abortion The Hon. Ann Symonds presented a petition supporting the continued availability of abortion and of counselling services at abortion clinics, and praying that this House vote against the private member's bill of Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile. Petition received. GOVERNOR'S SPEECH: ADDRESS IN REPLY Third Day's Debate Debate resumed from 18th August. The Hon. JUDITH WALKER [2.38]: To continue my contribution to this debate I wish to refer to the significance of the report of the Commission of Audit. Not only is it the Holy Grail of the Greiner Government but also it fails to report the total assets of New South Wales. However, oversea reports reveal that, because of its assets and net worth, New South Wales has an AAA credit rating. The Greiner Government did not earn that rating, but the Wran Labor Government and the Unsworth Labor Government did. The Labor Party Opposition, in conjunction with the federal Labor Government, has created jobs and by instilling confidence in the business sector has created more jobs. Labor governments have introduced wage and dispute handling agreements and, in the main, the workers have accepted the agreements. It would serve the Greiner Government right if, in the chase for the Holy Grail, its arms and legs were cut off. Unless the Government accepts the views of the union movement, which is waiting for consultation on the hidden agenda for the trade unions, the . Government stands to lose more than its arms and legs. Five years ago, as Vice-president of the New South Wales Labor Council, I attended a meeting of senior businessmen and union leaders. I had extensive discussions with a business leader, a media magnate with extensive interests in coalmining on the South Coast. That businessman told me that the trade union movement was being difficult as the coalmining unions, in particular, would not accept an offer he had made to them in relation to 222 COUNCIL 23 August, 1988 increased productivity. He had asked the unions to accept that union members would take their morning or afternoon tea breaks, or crib breaks as they are called, down in the mines rather than on the surface, as the productivity loss resulting from taking crib breaks on the surface was about half an hour per man. The interesting part about our discussion was that it revealed that the trade union people and the miners were not opposed to what that businessman had in mind to increase productivity-increased productivity meant more money for coalminers-but they were opposed to what was hidden behind the proposal. He had not put the full deck of cards on the table; he had not consulted them fully. Therefore they went away thinking, "If he wants this, what else does he have in mind? What else will he ask for later on?' That is what is wrong with the present New South Wales Government. Because of its lack of consultation, the Government's proposals, particularly those on education, are meeting tremendous resistance from the people of New South Wales. If the Government will not put the full story before those affected by a proposal, it will be no use the Government keeping its aces and jokers up its sleeve. I give the House an example of the Government's inability to communicate and negotiate. The Australian Railways Union, the Australian Transport Officers Federation, the National Union of Railworkers of Australia, and the Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Enginemen, wrote a fairly lengthy, open letter to the Minister for Transport, the Hon. B. G. Baird, seeking consultation. They approached the Labor Council of New South Wales, which sent an urgent letter to the Minister. In particular, that letter dealt with the proposed removal of barrier staff from metropolitan railway stations. That urgent letter, dated 30th June, 1988, was as follows: A number of affiliates have expressed concern at the S.R.A.'s proposal to remove Barrier Staff from the Metropolitan Railway System. On behalf of these affiliates I am writing to you to request an urgent meeting with you to discuss these concerns and attempt to seek some resolution of the issues. Hoping to meet with you in the near future. As at 23rd August, 1988, the unions were still awaiting a reply. However, on 20th July the Minister wrote to the Sydney Morning Herald as follows: Sir: The concept of an open bamer system is not new and is in operation on many modern overseas rail systems. The matter of open barriers arose out of joint discussions between State Rail and the service unions while investigating initiatives for greater efficiency in fare collection systems. Efficiency measures are necessary if State Rail is to reduce its burden on the public purse, which is running at more than $3,000,000 a day. The State Government has set targets which must be met and, in doing so, many changes will occur. However, it has always been, and will continue to be, State Rail policy to fully consult with the unions on any changes. I would like to take this public opportunity to remind Mr Walshe (Letters, July 15), and all railway employees, that the railway's future depends on the effective introduction of measures to increase efficiency and reduce costs. In the recent fare review our customers were asked to pay more to contribute toward reducing the loss. The unions cannot expect them to continually shoulder all the responsibility for reducing the railway debt. Bruce Baird, Minister for Transport. Parliament House, July 18 Sydney. 23 August, 1988 COUNCIL 223 If the Minister really was interested in negotiating with and consulting the union movement, why has he not answered the union's letter? Why has he not consulted the State Rail Authority group of unions? The Government's sacking of Mr Johnson as head of the State Rail Authority is well documented, but I think it worth while to mention a similar exercise that occurred some 13 years ago under the coalition Government of the day which hired Mr Philip Shirley. Mr Shirley was appointed with much fanfare and trumpet blowing on a salary of about $48,000 a year, which 13 years ago was a considerable amount of money. He was to save the State Rail Authority. History records that he failed. As a matter of fact, newspaper headlines about Mr Shirley are many, and their revelations quite incredible. They included "Signalmen's strike averted until talks this morning", which carried this article: A meeting of officials from the Australian Railways Union and Mr E. Young, operations manager of the Public Transport Commission, agreed that the signalmen would work, pending talks at 9 a.m.. The transport Minister, Mr Fife, presented a special report on the train crisis to the State Cabinet. Later, both Mr Fife and the Premier blamed union non-co-operation for the train troubles. Both Mr Lewis and Mr Fife dismissed a call by the State Opposition leader, Mr Wran, for dismissal of the Public Transport Commission. However, the unions stood firm. That article was about happenings in May 1975. Then under the headline "Progress Derailed" was this article: So much for the Public Transport Commission's "improvements" to Sydney's rail services. As commuters to and from the City know only too well, the introduction on Monday of new schedules for all metropolitan lines has been an unmitigated disaster. Many services have been cancelled altogether. Others have merely run late, although precisely how late is difficult to judge because detailed timetables are not yet available to the public. For the sake of the PTC, that is probably just as well. That was the type of matter reported continuously for about 12 months. Why did it continue so long? It was because the previous Liberal Party-Country Party governments would not contribute funding to the rolling-stock of this State and would not listen to the trade union movement, and because Mr Shirley in particular had no intention of listening to anyone with any expertise in these matters. That is evident by headlines such as "Shirley Heads the Firing Line", with an article that stated in part that it was quite proper that he be at the head of the firing line. Of course he was; he was the head of the Public Transport Commission. Other headlines included "PTC expects $250 million deficit, says Fife", "Three steps to better trains", "Federal Government to the rescue of the New South Wales transport system", "Even Mr Shirley must go by car", and "Trains-a time to protest". I read from a letter sent to the Sydney Morning Herald and dated 9th June, 1975: As I rose from my bed last Tuesday, I wondered what Mr Shirley had in store for me that day. As I dressed, the radio told me that the Transport Commission had advised that all trains were running on time. As I stood at my local station, I read from your publication that Mr Shirley had said that there had been a continuing improvement in services. Some 40 minutes later, a train (seven single carriages only) appeared on the horizon and, as I squeezed into the sardine tin, I asked myself the question, "who's fooling whom?" As I observed the thousands of human sheep left lamenting on the stations down the line, I came up with the answer-"At least the real sheep have the RSPCA to look after them." 224 COUNCIL 23 August, 1988 I was angry and I am going to become angrier.