❓ The Premier confirms the resolution of the teachers' pay dispute following a favorable vote on the government's salary package, highlighting the government's commitment to education and improved teacher compensation.
AnsweredQoN 147Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
TEACHERS’ PAY DISPUTE — RESOLUTION
Given the overwhelming vote in favour of the government’s salary package for teachers, will the Premier confirm that the long-running dispute over teachers’ pay, and the most disruptive effect of that lengthy dispute on teachers in my electorate and across the state, is now over? Mr C.J. BARNETT
Given the overwhelming vote in favour of the government’s salary package for teachers, will the Premier confirm that the long-running dispute over teachers’ pay, and the most disruptive effect of that lengthy dispute on teachers in my electorate and across the state, is now over? Mr C.J. BARNETT
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for Kingsley for the question. The dispute had been going on for a year. How are we to get quality teaching, the confidence of parents, children learning and schools functioning well if we have an ongoing 12-month dispute with teachers? The approach of the former Labor government to the teaching profession in this state was little short of shameful, including its members standing up at conferences and insulting teachers publicly. That was the standard the Labor Party set in government. During the election campaign we said that education would be a top priority for a Liberal government—a Liberal-National government as it transpired. We said that we would start by paying our teachers not just fairly but well. We want well-paid teachers; we want to retain quality teachers; and we want to attract talented young people into teaching. Surely, the opposition does not have a problem with that. We made a full, global commitment of $120 million in addition to the previous government’s offer. We told teachers that we would do that. What did we do? We said that six per cent would be in their pay next pay day, that we would continue in good faith to conclude the agreement and that, regardless of what the State School Teachers’ Union of WA might want to talk about, we, the employers on behalf of the people of this state, would immediately give them a six per cent pay rise. We did that; we paid them six per cent before the agreement was concluded. The agreement was then negotiated. I congratulate the Minister for Education, who concluded the negotiations, along with the Director General of the Department of Education and Training. Then, as is required, the teachers’ union put that agreement to its 25 000 to 35 000 members for a vote. I know it must make opposition members feel ill to know that 93 per cent of teachers voted yes to the Liberal-National government’s offer, and that they did it within 72 days compared with the 365 days, or whatever it finally worked out at, for the dispute. They voted yes. The Minister for Education got not only a distinction, but also a high distinction, probably an exhibition and certainly dux of the class for that result.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for Kingsley for the question. The dispute had been going on for a year. How are we to get quality teaching, the confidence of parents, children learning and schools functioning well if we have an ongoing 12-month dispute with teachers? The approach of the former Labor government to the teaching profession in this state was little short of shameful, including its members standing up at conferences and insulting teachers publicly. That was the standard the Labor Party set in government. During the election campaign we said that education would be a top priority for a Liberal government—a Liberal-National government as it transpired. We said that we would start by paying our teachers not just fairly but well. We want well-paid teachers; we want to retain quality teachers; and we want to attract talented young people into teaching. Surely, the opposition does not have a problem with that. We made a full, global commitment of $120 million in addition to the previous government’s offer. We told teachers that we would do that. What did we do? We said that six per cent would be in their pay next pay day, that we would continue in good faith to conclude the agreement and that, regardless of what the State School Teachers’ Union of WA might want to talk about, we, the employers on behalf of the people of this state, would immediately give them a six per cent pay rise. We did that; we paid them six per cent before the agreement was concluded. The agreement was then negotiated. I congratulate the Minister for Education, who concluded the negotiations, along with the Director General of the Department of Education and Training. Then, as is required, the teachers’ union put that agreement to its 25 000 to 35 000 members for a vote. I know it must make opposition members feel ill to know that 93 per cent of teachers voted yes to the Liberal-National government’s offer, and that they did it within 72 days compared with the 365 days, or whatever it finally worked out at, for the dispute. They voted yes. The Minister for Education got not only a distinction, but also a high distinction, probably an exhibition and certainly dux of the class for that result.
I thank the member for Kingsley for the question. The dispute had been going on for a year. How are we to get quality teaching, the confidence of parents, children learning and schools functioning well if we have an ongoing 12-month dispute with teachers? The approach of the former Labor government to the teaching profession in this state was little short of shameful, including its members standing up at conferences and insulting teachers publicly. That was the standard the Labor Party set in government. During the election campaign we said that education would be a top priority for a Liberal government—a Liberal-National government as it transpired. We said that we would start by paying our teachers not just fairly but well. We want well-paid teachers; we want to retain quality teachers; and we want to attract talented young people into teaching. Surely, the opposition does not have a problem with that. We made a full, global commitment of $120 million in addition to the previous government’s offer. We told teachers that we would do that. What did we do? We said that six per cent would be in their pay next pay day, that we would continue in good faith to conclude the agreement and that, regardless of what the State School Teachers’ Union of WA might want to talk about, we, the employers on behalf of the people of this state, would immediately give them a six per cent pay rise. We did that; we paid them six per cent before the agreement was concluded. The agreement was then negotiated. I congratulate the Minister for Education, who concluded the negotiations, along with the Director General of the Department of Education and Training. Then, as is required, the teachers’ union put that agreement to its 25 000 to 35 000 members for a vote. I know it must make opposition members feel ill to know that 93 per cent of teachers voted yes to the Liberal-National government’s offer, and that they did it within 72 days compared with the 365 days, or whatever it finally worked out at, for the dispute. They voted yes. The Minister for Education got not only a distinction, but also a high distinction, probably an exhibition and certainly dux of the class for that result.
The dispute had been going on for a year. How are we to get quality teaching, the confidence of parents, children learning and schools functioning well if we have an ongoing 12-month dispute with teachers? The approach of the former Labor government to the teaching profession in this state was little short of shameful, including its members standing up at conferences and insulting teachers publicly. That was the standard the Labor Party set in government. During the election campaign we said that education would be a top priority for a Liberal government—a Liberal-National government as it transpired. We said that we would start by paying our teachers not just fairly but well. We want well-paid teachers; we want to retain quality teachers; and we want to attract talented young people into teaching. Surely, the opposition does not have a problem with that. We made a full, global commitment of $120 million in addition to the previous government’s offer. We told teachers that we would do that. What did we do? We said that six per cent would be in their pay next pay day, that we would continue in good faith to conclude the agreement and that, regardless of what the State School Teachers’ Union of WA might want to talk about, we, the employers on behalf of the people of this state, would immediately give them a six per cent pay rise. We did that; we paid them six per cent before the agreement was concluded. The agreement was then negotiated. I congratulate the Minister for Education, who concluded the negotiations, along with the Director General of the Department of Education and Training. Then, as is required, the teachers’ union put that agreement to its 25 000 to 35 000 members for a vote. I know it must make opposition members feel ill to know that 93 per cent of teachers voted yes to the Liberal-National government’s offer, and that they did it within 72 days compared with the 365 days, or whatever it finally worked out at, for the dispute. They voted yes. The Minister for Education got not only a distinction, but also a high distinction, probably an exhibition and certainly dux of the class for that result.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for Kingsley for the question. The dispute had been going on for a year. How are we to get quality teaching, the confidence of parents, children learning and schools functioning well if we have an ongoing 12-month dispute with teachers? The approach of the former Labor government to the teaching profession in this state was little short of shameful, including its members standing up at conferences and insulting teachers publicly. That was the standard the Labor Party set in government. During the election campaign we said that education would be a top priority for a Liberal government—a Liberal-National government as it transpired. We said that we would start by paying our teachers not just fairly but well. We want well-paid teachers; we want to retain quality teachers; and we want to attract talented young people into teaching. Surely, the opposition does not have a problem with that. We made a full, global commitment of $120 million in addition to the previous government’s offer. We told teachers that we would do that. What did we do? We said that six per cent would be in their pay next pay day, that we would continue in good faith to conclude the agreement and that, regardless of what the State School Teachers’ Union of WA might want to talk about, we, the employers on behalf of the people of this state, would immediately give them a six per cent pay rise. We did that; we paid them six per cent before the agreement was concluded. The agreement was then negotiated. I congratulate the Minister for Education, who concluded the negotiations, along with the Director General of the Department of Education and Training. Then, as is required, the teachers’ union put that agreement to its 25 000 to 35 000 members for a vote. I know it must make opposition members feel ill to know that 93 per cent of teachers voted yes to the Liberal-National government’s offer, and that they did it within 72 days compared with the 365 days, or whatever it finally worked out at, for the dispute. They voted yes. The Minister for Education got not only a distinction, but also a high distinction, probably an exhibition and certainly dux of the class for that result.
I thank the member for Kingsley for the question. The dispute had been going on for a year. How are we to get quality teaching, the confidence of parents, children learning and schools functioning well if we have an ongoing 12-month dispute with teachers? The approach of the former Labor government to the teaching profession in this state was little short of shameful, including its members standing up at conferences and insulting teachers publicly. That was the standard the Labor Party set in government. During the election campaign we said that education would be a top priority for a Liberal government—a Liberal-National government as it transpired. We said that we would start by paying our teachers not just fairly but well. We want well-paid teachers; we want to retain quality teachers; and we want to attract talented young people into teaching. Surely, the opposition does not have a problem with that. We made a full, global commitment of $120 million in addition to the previous government’s offer. We told teachers that we would do that. What did we do? We said that six per cent would be in their pay next pay day, that we would continue in good faith to conclude the agreement and that, regardless of what the State School Teachers’ Union of WA might want to talk about, we, the employers on behalf of the people of this state, would immediately give them a six per cent pay rise. We did that; we paid them six per cent before the agreement was concluded. The agreement was then negotiated. I congratulate the Minister for Education, who concluded the negotiations, along with the Director General of the Department of Education and Training. Then, as is required, the teachers’ union put that agreement to its 25 000 to 35 000 members for a vote. I know it must make opposition members feel ill to know that 93 per cent of teachers voted yes to the Liberal-National government’s offer, and that they did it within 72 days compared with the 365 days, or whatever it finally worked out at, for the dispute. They voted yes. The Minister for Education got not only a distinction, but also a high distinction, probably an exhibition and certainly dux of the class for that result.
The dispute had been going on for a year. How are we to get quality teaching, the confidence of parents, children learning and schools functioning well if we have an ongoing 12-month dispute with teachers? The approach of the former Labor government to the teaching profession in this state was little short of shameful, including its members standing up at conferences and insulting teachers publicly. That was the standard the Labor Party set in government. During the election campaign we said that education would be a top priority for a Liberal government—a Liberal-National government as it transpired. We said that we would start by paying our teachers not just fairly but well. We want well-paid teachers; we want to retain quality teachers; and we want to attract talented young people into teaching. Surely, the opposition does not have a problem with that. We made a full, global commitment of $120 million in addition to the previous government’s offer. We told teachers that we would do that. What did we do? We said that six per cent would be in their pay next pay day, that we would continue in good faith to conclude the agreement and that, regardless of what the State School Teachers’ Union of WA might want to talk about, we, the employers on behalf of the people of this state, would immediately give them a six per cent pay rise. We did that; we paid them six per cent before the agreement was concluded. The agreement was then negotiated. I congratulate the Minister for Education, who concluded the negotiations, along with the Director General of the Department of Education and Training. Then, as is required, the teachers’ union put that agreement to its 25 000 to 35 000 members for a vote. I know it must make opposition members feel ill to know that 93 per cent of teachers voted yes to the Liberal-National government’s offer, and that they did it within 72 days compared with the 365 days, or whatever it finally worked out at, for the dispute. They voted yes. The Minister for Education got not only a distinction, but also a high distinction, probably an exhibition and certainly dux of the class for that result.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.