❓ A parliamentary question regarding the WA government's advertising campaign on teacher salaries, questioning the accuracy and timing of the information presented. The Minister defends the campaign as a response to union advertising and clarifies the government's pay offer.
AnsweredQoN 43Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
TEACHER SALARIES — DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING ADVERTISING
I know the minister would be devastated if he did not receive a question. I refer to the government’s wasteful advertising campaign, which outlines new rates of pay for teachers to apply from February 2011. (1) How much money will be spent on this campaign and for how long will the campaign run? (2) Why is the minister deceiving the Western Australian public by including a comparison of pay rates between the states given that the other states’ figures are for 2008 while the Western Australian offer will not take effect until 2011? (3) Based on the government’s current pay offer, can the minister confirm that all Western Australian teachers—from teacher levels 1.1 to 2.4, senior teacher levels 1 and 2 and classroom teacher levels 3.1 and 3.2—will be included as the highest paid in the country? A member interjected. Mr J.H.D. DAY : Would you like to call him to order, Mr Speaker? I continue — (4) Why is the minister misleading and deceiving the Western Australian public by claiming that Western Australia will have the highest paid teachers by 2011 when a new pay offer is being negotiated in New South Wales? Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Two of the questions asked by the member for Darling Range made an assertion that the minister was deceiving. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to consider that such an implication in a question is not appropriate and is outside the standing orders. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to that point of order, the question referred to factual errors or inconsistencies in advertisements, and it is quite proper that the minister be asked to explain them. No assertion is made about the minister’s conduct. The question was about the content of publicly funded advertisements. The SPEAKER : It is an interesting point of order and one that is reliant upon the actual words used in the question. If there was an implication in the question that the minister deliberately misled, and that it was his intention to do so, it would be out of order. I do not know that they were actually the words that were said. I ask the minister to answer the question. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN
I know the minister would be devastated if he did not receive a question. I refer to the government’s wasteful advertising campaign, which outlines new rates of pay for teachers to apply from February 2011. (1) How much money will be spent on this campaign and for how long will the campaign run? (2) Why is the minister deceiving the Western Australian public by including a comparison of pay rates between the states given that the other states’ figures are for 2008 while the Western Australian offer will not take effect until 2011? (3) Based on the government’s current pay offer, can the minister confirm that all Western Australian teachers—from teacher levels 1.1 to 2.4, senior teacher levels 1 and 2 and classroom teacher levels 3.1 and 3.2—will be included as the highest paid in the country? A member interjected. Mr J.H.D. DAY : Would you like to call him to order, Mr Speaker? I continue — (4) Why is the minister misleading and deceiving the Western Australian public by claiming that Western Australia will have the highest paid teachers by 2011 when a new pay offer is being negotiated in New South Wales? Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Two of the questions asked by the member for Darling Range made an assertion that the minister was deceiving. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to consider that such an implication in a question is not appropriate and is outside the standing orders. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to that point of order, the question referred to factual errors or inconsistencies in advertisements, and it is quite proper that the minister be asked to explain them. No assertion is made about the minister’s conduct. The question was about the content of publicly funded advertisements. The SPEAKER : It is an interesting point of order and one that is reliant upon the actual words used in the question. If there was an implication in the question that the minister deliberately misled, and that it was his intention to do so, it would be out of order. I do not know that they were actually the words that were said. I ask the minister to answer the question. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN
AnswerView source ↗
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that guidance. (1)-(4) The member for Darling Range is a mature and experienced person, and that is what surprises me about this question. I would have thought that this question would come from someone who is inexperienced and immature—someone like the Leader of the Opposition. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I would like to outline to the house what has gone on. The teachers’ union has launched an advertising campaign. I am sure we have all seen the advertisements on the television using children to promote the union case. Consequent to the launch of that campaign, the government responded with some advertisements that set out, for the public and the teaching workforce, what is actually on offer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
(1) How much money will be spent on this campaign and for how long will the campaign run? (2) Why is the minister deceiving the Western Australian public by including a comparison of pay rates between the states given that the other states’ figures are for 2008 while the Western Australian offer will not take effect until 2011? (3) Based on the government’s current pay offer, can the minister confirm that all Western Australian teachers—from teacher levels 1.1 to 2.4, senior teacher levels 1 and 2 and classroom teacher levels 3.1 and 3.2—will be included as the highest paid in the country? A member interjected. Mr J.H.D. DAY : Would you like to call him to order, Mr Speaker? I continue — (4) Why is the minister misleading and deceiving the Western Australian public by claiming that Western Australia will have the highest paid teachers by 2011 when a new pay offer is being negotiated in New South Wales? Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Two of the questions asked by the member for Darling Range made an assertion that the minister was deceiving. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to consider that such an implication in a question is not appropriate and is outside the standing orders. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to that point of order, the question referred to factual errors or inconsistencies in advertisements, and it is quite proper that the minister be asked to explain them. No assertion is made about the minister’s conduct. The question was about the content of publicly funded advertisements. The SPEAKER : It is an interesting point of order and one that is reliant upon the actual words used in the question. If there was an implication in the question that the minister deliberately misled, and that it was his intention to do so, it would be out of order. I do not know that they were actually the words that were said. I ask the minister to answer the question. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN replied: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that guidance. (1)-(4) The member for Darling Range is a mature and experienced person, and that is what surprises me about this question. I would have thought that this question would come from someone who is inexperienced and immature—someone like the Leader of the Opposition. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I would like to outline to the house what has gone on. The teachers’ union has launched an advertising campaign. I am sure we have all seen the advertisements on the television using children to promote the union case. Consequent to the launch of that campaign, the government responded with some advertisements that set out, for the public and the teaching workforce, what is actually on offer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
(2) Why is the minister deceiving the Western Australian public by including a comparison of pay rates between the states given that the other states’ figures are for 2008 while the Western Australian offer will not take effect until 2011? (3) Based on the government’s current pay offer, can the minister confirm that all Western Australian teachers—from teacher levels 1.1 to 2.4, senior teacher levels 1 and 2 and classroom teacher levels 3.1 and 3.2—will be included as the highest paid in the country? A member interjected. Mr J.H.D. DAY : Would you like to call him to order, Mr Speaker? I continue — (4) Why is the minister misleading and deceiving the Western Australian public by claiming that Western Australia will have the highest paid teachers by 2011 when a new pay offer is being negotiated in New South Wales? Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Two of the questions asked by the member for Darling Range made an assertion that the minister was deceiving. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to consider that such an implication in a question is not appropriate and is outside the standing orders. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to that point of order, the question referred to factual errors or inconsistencies in advertisements, and it is quite proper that the minister be asked to explain them. No assertion is made about the minister’s conduct. The question was about the content of publicly funded advertisements. The SPEAKER : It is an interesting point of order and one that is reliant upon the actual words used in the question. If there was an implication in the question that the minister deliberately misled, and that it was his intention to do so, it would be out of order. I do not know that they were actually the words that were said. I ask the minister to answer the question. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN replied: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that guidance. (1)-(4) The member for Darling Range is a mature and experienced person, and that is what surprises me about this question. I would have thought that this question would come from someone who is inexperienced and immature—someone like the Leader of the Opposition. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I would like to outline to the house what has gone on. The teachers’ union has launched an advertising campaign. I am sure we have all seen the advertisements on the television using children to promote the union case. Consequent to the launch of that campaign, the government responded with some advertisements that set out, for the public and the teaching workforce, what is actually on offer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
(3) Based on the government’s current pay offer, can the minister confirm that all Western Australian teachers—from teacher levels 1.1 to 2.4, senior teacher levels 1 and 2 and classroom teacher levels 3.1 and 3.2—will be included as the highest paid in the country? A member interjected. Mr J.H.D. DAY : Would you like to call him to order, Mr Speaker? I continue — (4) Why is the minister misleading and deceiving the Western Australian public by claiming that Western Australia will have the highest paid teachers by 2011 when a new pay offer is being negotiated in New South Wales? Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Two of the questions asked by the member for Darling Range made an assertion that the minister was deceiving. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to consider that such an implication in a question is not appropriate and is outside the standing orders. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to that point of order, the question referred to factual errors or inconsistencies in advertisements, and it is quite proper that the minister be asked to explain them. No assertion is made about the minister’s conduct. The question was about the content of publicly funded advertisements. The SPEAKER : It is an interesting point of order and one that is reliant upon the actual words used in the question. If there was an implication in the question that the minister deliberately misled, and that it was his intention to do so, it would be out of order. I do not know that they were actually the words that were said. I ask the minister to answer the question. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN replied: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that guidance. (1)-(4) The member for Darling Range is a mature and experienced person, and that is what surprises me about this question. I would have thought that this question would come from someone who is inexperienced and immature—someone like the Leader of the Opposition. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I would like to outline to the house what has gone on. The teachers’ union has launched an advertising campaign. I am sure we have all seen the advertisements on the television using children to promote the union case. Consequent to the launch of that campaign, the government responded with some advertisements that set out, for the public and the teaching workforce, what is actually on offer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
A member interjected. Mr J.H.D. DAY : Would you like to call him to order, Mr Speaker? I continue — (4) Why is the minister misleading and deceiving the Western Australian public by claiming that Western Australia will have the highest paid teachers by 2011 when a new pay offer is being negotiated in New South Wales? Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Two of the questions asked by the member for Darling Range made an assertion that the minister was deceiving. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to consider that such an implication in a question is not appropriate and is outside the standing orders. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to that point of order, the question referred to factual errors or inconsistencies in advertisements, and it is quite proper that the minister be asked to explain them. No assertion is made about the minister’s conduct. The question was about the content of publicly funded advertisements. The SPEAKER : It is an interesting point of order and one that is reliant upon the actual words used in the question. If there was an implication in the question that the minister deliberately misled, and that it was his intention to do so, it would be out of order. I do not know that they were actually the words that were said. I ask the minister to answer the question. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN replied: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that guidance. (1)-(4) The member for Darling Range is a mature and experienced person, and that is what surprises me about this question. I would have thought that this question would come from someone who is inexperienced and immature—someone like the Leader of the Opposition. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I would like to outline to the house what has gone on. The teachers’ union has launched an advertising campaign. I am sure we have all seen the advertisements on the television using children to promote the union case. Consequent to the launch of that campaign, the government responded with some advertisements that set out, for the public and the teaching workforce, what is actually on offer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
Mr J.H.D. DAY : Would you like to call him to order, Mr Speaker? I continue — (4) Why is the minister misleading and deceiving the Western Australian public by claiming that Western Australia will have the highest paid teachers by 2011 when a new pay offer is being negotiated in New South Wales? Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Two of the questions asked by the member for Darling Range made an assertion that the minister was deceiving. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to consider that such an implication in a question is not appropriate and is outside the standing orders. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to that point of order, the question referred to factual errors or inconsistencies in advertisements, and it is quite proper that the minister be asked to explain them. No assertion is made about the minister’s conduct. The question was about the content of publicly funded advertisements. The SPEAKER : It is an interesting point of order and one that is reliant upon the actual words used in the question. If there was an implication in the question that the minister deliberately misled, and that it was his intention to do so, it would be out of order. I do not know that they were actually the words that were said. I ask the minister to answer the question. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN replied: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that guidance. (1)-(4) The member for Darling Range is a mature and experienced person, and that is what surprises me about this question. I would have thought that this question would come from someone who is inexperienced and immature—someone like the Leader of the Opposition. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I would like to outline to the house what has gone on. The teachers’ union has launched an advertising campaign. I am sure we have all seen the advertisements on the television using children to promote the union case. Consequent to the launch of that campaign, the government responded with some advertisements that set out, for the public and the teaching workforce, what is actually on offer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
I continue — (4) Why is the minister misleading and deceiving the Western Australian public by claiming that Western Australia will have the highest paid teachers by 2011 when a new pay offer is being negotiated in New South Wales? Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Two of the questions asked by the member for Darling Range made an assertion that the minister was deceiving. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to consider that such an implication in a question is not appropriate and is outside the standing orders. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to that point of order, the question referred to factual errors or inconsistencies in advertisements, and it is quite proper that the minister be asked to explain them. No assertion is made about the minister’s conduct. The question was about the content of publicly funded advertisements. The SPEAKER : It is an interesting point of order and one that is reliant upon the actual words used in the question. If there was an implication in the question that the minister deliberately misled, and that it was his intention to do so, it would be out of order. I do not know that they were actually the words that were said. I ask the minister to answer the question. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN replied: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that guidance. (1)-(4) The member for Darling Range is a mature and experienced person, and that is what surprises me about this question. I would have thought that this question would come from someone who is inexperienced and immature—someone like the Leader of the Opposition. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I would like to outline to the house what has gone on. The teachers’ union has launched an advertising campaign. I am sure we have all seen the advertisements on the television using children to promote the union case. Consequent to the launch of that campaign, the government responded with some advertisements that set out, for the public and the teaching workforce, what is actually on offer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
(4) Why is the minister misleading and deceiving the Western Australian public by claiming that Western Australia will have the highest paid teachers by 2011 when a new pay offer is being negotiated in New South Wales? Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Two of the questions asked by the member for Darling Range made an assertion that the minister was deceiving. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to consider that such an implication in a question is not appropriate and is outside the standing orders. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to that point of order, the question referred to factual errors or inconsistencies in advertisements, and it is quite proper that the minister be asked to explain them. No assertion is made about the minister’s conduct. The question was about the content of publicly funded advertisements. The SPEAKER : It is an interesting point of order and one that is reliant upon the actual words used in the question. If there was an implication in the question that the minister deliberately misled, and that it was his intention to do so, it would be out of order. I do not know that they were actually the words that were said. I ask the minister to answer the question. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN replied: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that guidance. (1)-(4) The member for Darling Range is a mature and experienced person, and that is what surprises me about this question. I would have thought that this question would come from someone who is inexperienced and immature—someone like the Leader of the Opposition. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I would like to outline to the house what has gone on. The teachers’ union has launched an advertising campaign. I am sure we have all seen the advertisements on the television using children to promote the union case. Consequent to the launch of that campaign, the government responded with some advertisements that set out, for the public and the teaching workforce, what is actually on offer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to that point of order, the question referred to factual errors or inconsistencies in advertisements, and it is quite proper that the minister be asked to explain them. No assertion is made about the minister’s conduct. The question was about the content of publicly funded advertisements. The SPEAKER : It is an interesting point of order and one that is reliant upon the actual words used in the question. If there was an implication in the question that the minister deliberately misled, and that it was his intention to do so, it would be out of order. I do not know that they were actually the words that were said. I ask the minister to answer the question. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN replied: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that guidance. (1)-(4) The member for Darling Range is a mature and experienced person, and that is what surprises me about this question. I would have thought that this question would come from someone who is inexperienced and immature—someone like the Leader of the Opposition. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I would like to outline to the house what has gone on. The teachers’ union has launched an advertising campaign. I am sure we have all seen the advertisements on the television using children to promote the union case. Consequent to the launch of that campaign, the government responded with some advertisements that set out, for the public and the teaching workforce, what is actually on offer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
The SPEAKER : It is an interesting point of order and one that is reliant upon the actual words used in the question. If there was an implication in the question that the minister deliberately misled, and that it was his intention to do so, it would be out of order. I do not know that they were actually the words that were said. I ask the minister to answer the question. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN replied: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that guidance. (1)-(4) The member for Darling Range is a mature and experienced person, and that is what surprises me about this question. I would have thought that this question would come from someone who is inexperienced and immature—someone like the Leader of the Opposition. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I would like to outline to the house what has gone on. The teachers’ union has launched an advertising campaign. I am sure we have all seen the advertisements on the television using children to promote the union case. Consequent to the launch of that campaign, the government responded with some advertisements that set out, for the public and the teaching workforce, what is actually on offer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that guidance. (1)-(4) The member for Darling Range is a mature and experienced person, and that is what surprises me about this question. I would have thought that this question would come from someone who is inexperienced and immature—someone like the Leader of the Opposition. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I would like to outline to the house what has gone on. The teachers’ union has launched an advertising campaign. I am sure we have all seen the advertisements on the television using children to promote the union case. Consequent to the launch of that campaign, the government responded with some advertisements that set out, for the public and the teaching workforce, what is actually on offer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
(1)-(4) The member for Darling Range is a mature and experienced person, and that is what surprises me about this question. I would have thought that this question would come from someone who is inexperienced and immature—someone like the Leader of the Opposition. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I would like to outline to the house what has gone on. The teachers’ union has launched an advertising campaign. I am sure we have all seen the advertisements on the television using children to promote the union case. Consequent to the launch of that campaign, the government responded with some advertisements that set out, for the public and the teaching workforce, what is actually on offer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I would like to outline to the house what has gone on. The teachers’ union has launched an advertising campaign. I am sure we have all seen the advertisements on the television using children to promote the union case. Consequent to the launch of that campaign, the government responded with some advertisements that set out, for the public and the teaching workforce, what is actually on offer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I would like to outline to the house what has gone on. The teachers’ union has launched an advertising campaign. I am sure we have all seen the advertisements on the television using children to promote the union case. Consequent to the launch of that campaign, the government responded with some advertisements that set out, for the public and the teaching workforce, what is actually on offer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
Mr M. McGOWAN : I would like to outline to the house what has gone on. The teachers’ union has launched an advertising campaign. I am sure we have all seen the advertisements on the television using children to promote the union case. Consequent to the launch of that campaign, the government responded with some advertisements that set out, for the public and the teaching workforce, what is actually on offer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
(1) How much money will be spent on this campaign and for how long will the campaign run? (2) Why is the minister deceiving the Western Australian public by including a comparison of pay rates between the states given that the other states’ figures are for 2008 while the Western Australian offer will not take effect until 2011? (3) Based on the government’s current pay offer, can the minister confirm that all Western Australian teachers—from teacher levels 1.1 to 2.4, senior teacher levels 1 and 2 and classroom teacher levels 3.1 and 3.2—will be included as the highest paid in the country? A member interjected. Mr J.H.D. DAY : Would you like to call him to order, Mr Speaker? I continue — (4) Why is the minister misleading and deceiving the Western Australian public by claiming that Western Australia will have the highest paid teachers by 2011 when a new pay offer is being negotiated in New South Wales? Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Two of the questions asked by the member for Darling Range made an assertion that the minister was deceiving. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to consider that such an implication in a question is not appropriate and is outside the standing orders. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to that point of order, the question referred to factual errors or inconsistencies in advertisements, and it is quite proper that the minister be asked to explain them. No assertion is made about the minister’s conduct. The question was about the content of publicly funded advertisements. The SPEAKER : It is an interesting point of order and one that is reliant upon the actual words used in the question. If there was an implication in the question that the minister deliberately misled, and that it was his intention to do so, it would be out of order. I do not know that they were actually the words that were said. I ask the minister to answer the question. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN replied: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that guidance. (1)-(4) The member for Darling Range is a mature and experienced person, and that is what surprises me about this question. I would have thought that this question would come from someone who is inexperienced and immature—someone like the Leader of the Opposition. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I would like to outline to the house what has gone on. The teachers’ union has launched an advertising campaign. I am sure we have all seen the advertisements on the television using children to promote the union case. Consequent to the launch of that campaign, the government responded with some advertisements that set out, for the public and the teaching workforce, what is actually on offer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
(2) Why is the minister deceiving the Western Australian public by including a comparison of pay rates between the states given that the other states’ figures are for 2008 while the Western Australian offer will not take effect until 2011? (3) Based on the government’s current pay offer, can the minister confirm that all Western Australian teachers—from teacher levels 1.1 to 2.4, senior teacher levels 1 and 2 and classroom teacher levels 3.1 and 3.2—will be included as the highest paid in the country? A member interjected. Mr J.H.D. DAY : Would you like to call him to order, Mr Speaker? I continue — (4) Why is the minister misleading and deceiving the Western Australian public by claiming that Western Australia will have the highest paid teachers by 2011 when a new pay offer is being negotiated in New South Wales? Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Two of the questions asked by the member for Darling Range made an assertion that the minister was deceiving. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to consider that such an implication in a question is not appropriate and is outside the standing orders. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to that point of order, the question referred to factual errors or inconsistencies in advertisements, and it is quite proper that the minister be asked to explain them. No assertion is made about the minister’s conduct. The question was about the content of publicly funded advertisements. The SPEAKER : It is an interesting point of order and one that is reliant upon the actual words used in the question. If there was an implication in the question that the minister deliberately misled, and that it was his intention to do so, it would be out of order. I do not know that they were actually the words that were said. I ask the minister to answer the question. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN replied: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that guidance. (1)-(4) The member for Darling Range is a mature and experienced person, and that is what surprises me about this question. I would have thought that this question would come from someone who is inexperienced and immature—someone like the Leader of the Opposition. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I would like to outline to the house what has gone on. The teachers’ union has launched an advertising campaign. I am sure we have all seen the advertisements on the television using children to promote the union case. Consequent to the launch of that campaign, the government responded with some advertisements that set out, for the public and the teaching workforce, what is actually on offer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
(3) Based on the government’s current pay offer, can the minister confirm that all Western Australian teachers—from teacher levels 1.1 to 2.4, senior teacher levels 1 and 2 and classroom teacher levels 3.1 and 3.2—will be included as the highest paid in the country? A member interjected. Mr J.H.D. DAY : Would you like to call him to order, Mr Speaker? I continue — (4) Why is the minister misleading and deceiving the Western Australian public by claiming that Western Australia will have the highest paid teachers by 2011 when a new pay offer is being negotiated in New South Wales? Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Two of the questions asked by the member for Darling Range made an assertion that the minister was deceiving. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to consider that such an implication in a question is not appropriate and is outside the standing orders. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to that point of order, the question referred to factual errors or inconsistencies in advertisements, and it is quite proper that the minister be asked to explain them. No assertion is made about the minister’s conduct. The question was about the content of publicly funded advertisements. The SPEAKER : It is an interesting point of order and one that is reliant upon the actual words used in the question. If there was an implication in the question that the minister deliberately misled, and that it was his intention to do so, it would be out of order. I do not know that they were actually the words that were said. I ask the minister to answer the question. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN replied: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that guidance. (1)-(4) The member for Darling Range is a mature and experienced person, and that is what surprises me about this question. I would have thought that this question would come from someone who is inexperienced and immature—someone like the Leader of the Opposition. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I would like to outline to the house what has gone on. The teachers’ union has launched an advertising campaign. I am sure we have all seen the advertisements on the television using children to promote the union case. Consequent to the launch of that campaign, the government responded with some advertisements that set out, for the public and the teaching workforce, what is actually on offer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
A member interjected. Mr J.H.D. DAY : Would you like to call him to order, Mr Speaker? I continue — (4) Why is the minister misleading and deceiving the Western Australian public by claiming that Western Australia will have the highest paid teachers by 2011 when a new pay offer is being negotiated in New South Wales? Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Two of the questions asked by the member for Darling Range made an assertion that the minister was deceiving. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to consider that such an implication in a question is not appropriate and is outside the standing orders. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to that point of order, the question referred to factual errors or inconsistencies in advertisements, and it is quite proper that the minister be asked to explain them. No assertion is made about the minister’s conduct. The question was about the content of publicly funded advertisements. The SPEAKER : It is an interesting point of order and one that is reliant upon the actual words used in the question. If there was an implication in the question that the minister deliberately misled, and that it was his intention to do so, it would be out of order. I do not know that they were actually the words that were said. I ask the minister to answer the question. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN replied: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that guidance. (1)-(4) The member for Darling Range is a mature and experienced person, and that is what surprises me about this question. I would have thought that this question would come from someone who is inexperienced and immature—someone like the Leader of the Opposition. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I would like to outline to the house what has gone on. The teachers’ union has launched an advertising campaign. I am sure we have all seen the advertisements on the television using children to promote the union case. Consequent to the launch of that campaign, the government responded with some advertisements that set out, for the public and the teaching workforce, what is actually on offer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
Mr J.H.D. DAY : Would you like to call him to order, Mr Speaker? I continue — (4) Why is the minister misleading and deceiving the Western Australian public by claiming that Western Australia will have the highest paid teachers by 2011 when a new pay offer is being negotiated in New South Wales? Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Two of the questions asked by the member for Darling Range made an assertion that the minister was deceiving. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to consider that such an implication in a question is not appropriate and is outside the standing orders. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to that point of order, the question referred to factual errors or inconsistencies in advertisements, and it is quite proper that the minister be asked to explain them. No assertion is made about the minister’s conduct. The question was about the content of publicly funded advertisements. The SPEAKER : It is an interesting point of order and one that is reliant upon the actual words used in the question. If there was an implication in the question that the minister deliberately misled, and that it was his intention to do so, it would be out of order. I do not know that they were actually the words that were said. I ask the minister to answer the question. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN replied: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that guidance. (1)-(4) The member for Darling Range is a mature and experienced person, and that is what surprises me about this question. I would have thought that this question would come from someone who is inexperienced and immature—someone like the Leader of the Opposition. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I would like to outline to the house what has gone on. The teachers’ union has launched an advertising campaign. I am sure we have all seen the advertisements on the television using children to promote the union case. Consequent to the launch of that campaign, the government responded with some advertisements that set out, for the public and the teaching workforce, what is actually on offer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
I continue — (4) Why is the minister misleading and deceiving the Western Australian public by claiming that Western Australia will have the highest paid teachers by 2011 when a new pay offer is being negotiated in New South Wales? Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Two of the questions asked by the member for Darling Range made an assertion that the minister was deceiving. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to consider that such an implication in a question is not appropriate and is outside the standing orders. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to that point of order, the question referred to factual errors or inconsistencies in advertisements, and it is quite proper that the minister be asked to explain them. No assertion is made about the minister’s conduct. The question was about the content of publicly funded advertisements. The SPEAKER : It is an interesting point of order and one that is reliant upon the actual words used in the question. If there was an implication in the question that the minister deliberately misled, and that it was his intention to do so, it would be out of order. I do not know that they were actually the words that were said. I ask the minister to answer the question. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN replied: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that guidance. (1)-(4) The member for Darling Range is a mature and experienced person, and that is what surprises me about this question. I would have thought that this question would come from someone who is inexperienced and immature—someone like the Leader of the Opposition. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I would like to outline to the house what has gone on. The teachers’ union has launched an advertising campaign. I am sure we have all seen the advertisements on the television using children to promote the union case. Consequent to the launch of that campaign, the government responded with some advertisements that set out, for the public and the teaching workforce, what is actually on offer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
(4) Why is the minister misleading and deceiving the Western Australian public by claiming that Western Australia will have the highest paid teachers by 2011 when a new pay offer is being negotiated in New South Wales? Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : Two of the questions asked by the member for Darling Range made an assertion that the minister was deceiving. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to consider that such an implication in a question is not appropriate and is outside the standing orders. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to that point of order, the question referred to factual errors or inconsistencies in advertisements, and it is quite proper that the minister be asked to explain them. No assertion is made about the minister’s conduct. The question was about the content of publicly funded advertisements. The SPEAKER : It is an interesting point of order and one that is reliant upon the actual words used in the question. If there was an implication in the question that the minister deliberately misled, and that it was his intention to do so, it would be out of order. I do not know that they were actually the words that were said. I ask the minister to answer the question. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN replied: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that guidance. (1)-(4) The member for Darling Range is a mature and experienced person, and that is what surprises me about this question. I would have thought that this question would come from someone who is inexperienced and immature—someone like the Leader of the Opposition. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I would like to outline to the house what has gone on. The teachers’ union has launched an advertising campaign. I am sure we have all seen the advertisements on the television using children to promote the union case. Consequent to the launch of that campaign, the government responded with some advertisements that set out, for the public and the teaching workforce, what is actually on offer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to that point of order, the question referred to factual errors or inconsistencies in advertisements, and it is quite proper that the minister be asked to explain them. No assertion is made about the minister’s conduct. The question was about the content of publicly funded advertisements. The SPEAKER : It is an interesting point of order and one that is reliant upon the actual words used in the question. If there was an implication in the question that the minister deliberately misled, and that it was his intention to do so, it would be out of order. I do not know that they were actually the words that were said. I ask the minister to answer the question. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN replied: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that guidance. (1)-(4) The member for Darling Range is a mature and experienced person, and that is what surprises me about this question. I would have thought that this question would come from someone who is inexperienced and immature—someone like the Leader of the Opposition. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I would like to outline to the house what has gone on. The teachers’ union has launched an advertising campaign. I am sure we have all seen the advertisements on the television using children to promote the union case. Consequent to the launch of that campaign, the government responded with some advertisements that set out, for the public and the teaching workforce, what is actually on offer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
The SPEAKER : It is an interesting point of order and one that is reliant upon the actual words used in the question. If there was an implication in the question that the minister deliberately misled, and that it was his intention to do so, it would be out of order. I do not know that they were actually the words that were said. I ask the minister to answer the question. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN replied: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that guidance. (1)-(4) The member for Darling Range is a mature and experienced person, and that is what surprises me about this question. I would have thought that this question would come from someone who is inexperienced and immature—someone like the Leader of the Opposition. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I would like to outline to the house what has gone on. The teachers’ union has launched an advertising campaign. I am sure we have all seen the advertisements on the television using children to promote the union case. Consequent to the launch of that campaign, the government responded with some advertisements that set out, for the public and the teaching workforce, what is actually on offer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that guidance. (1)-(4) The member for Darling Range is a mature and experienced person, and that is what surprises me about this question. I would have thought that this question would come from someone who is inexperienced and immature—someone like the Leader of the Opposition. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I would like to outline to the house what has gone on. The teachers’ union has launched an advertising campaign. I am sure we have all seen the advertisements on the television using children to promote the union case. Consequent to the launch of that campaign, the government responded with some advertisements that set out, for the public and the teaching workforce, what is actually on offer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
(1)-(4) The member for Darling Range is a mature and experienced person, and that is what surprises me about this question. I would have thought that this question would come from someone who is inexperienced and immature—someone like the Leader of the Opposition. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I would like to outline to the house what has gone on. The teachers’ union has launched an advertising campaign. I am sure we have all seen the advertisements on the television using children to promote the union case. Consequent to the launch of that campaign, the government responded with some advertisements that set out, for the public and the teaching workforce, what is actually on offer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I would like to outline to the house what has gone on. The teachers’ union has launched an advertising campaign. I am sure we have all seen the advertisements on the television using children to promote the union case. Consequent to the launch of that campaign, the government responded with some advertisements that set out, for the public and the teaching workforce, what is actually on offer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I would like to outline to the house what has gone on. The teachers’ union has launched an advertising campaign. I am sure we have all seen the advertisements on the television using children to promote the union case. Consequent to the launch of that campaign, the government responded with some advertisements that set out, for the public and the teaching workforce, what is actually on offer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
Mr M. McGOWAN : I would like to outline to the house what has gone on. The teachers’ union has launched an advertising campaign. I am sure we have all seen the advertisements on the television using children to promote the union case. Consequent to the launch of that campaign, the government responded with some advertisements that set out, for the public and the teaching workforce, what is actually on offer. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
Mr M. McGOWAN : I will explain to the house a few relevant points so that people understand exactly what the government has offered to the teachers’ union. In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
In February 2011, ordinary teachers in their seventh year in the workforce—ordinarily around 29 years of age—working at a metropolitan school not categorised as a “tough school” will be paid $78 557, and a level 2 senior teacher will be paid $84 357. Currently, 5 800 teachers are level 2 senior teachers, and we have offered the opportunity for thousands more to get to that category of teacher. From February 2011, level 3 teachers will be paid $90 027. For teachers in the tough schools—260 schools around the state—many thousands of dollars will be added to those pay rates. At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
At the moment, the only state that pays teachers more than Western Australia at any level is New South Wales, and that is at only two pay points—graduates, and teachers in their ninth year of service. In the second to the eighth year of teaching, Western Australia pays more than New South Wales. In only the first and the ninth year of teaching does New South Wales pay more than Western Australia. A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
A lot of misinformation is being put out in the community. I wanted to correct that. We value our teaching workforce. We want to pay our teachers generously. We want to make sure our teachers are informed about what they will be paid under the offer we have put to them. Unfortunately, various people are putting out misinformation about that matter. It is interesting. We have made a $700 million offer to the teaching workforce. On 30 January, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition came into that position, he went on radio—I have not seen him on television lately; he seems to have gone very quiet—and was asked by Geoff Hutchinson — So if you get elected a significant part of your $2 billion surplus would go to, what, paying school teachers more? Mr Buswell responded — Geoff, it is far too simplistic to say you solve a problem by spending more money on it . . . In other words, no; he would not be spending more money! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
The SPEAKER : Order! Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
Mr M. McGOWAN : What does the shadow Treasurer have to say about this matter? In a front-page article in The West Australian , the shadow Treasurer attacked the idea of paying the public sector workforce more. We want to pay teachers well. We want to make sure teachers are rewarded properly. That is why we are advertising. We want to make sure that teachers are aware of that.
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.