Page 2002 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 24 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
quoted by Mr Stefaniak, and I think we would be very foolish to ignore those sorts of comments. They were made by people who are working in these fields who know the practical day-to-day problems of managing large work forces. They are well aware of the needs of the ACT, particularly the need to make the ACT a competitive place, and they want to provide for an environment, as much as we do, which is free of industrial disruption and in which large numbers of work days are not lost because of stupid and unnecessary industrial disputes.
In this regard I think it is worth quoting comments by the Chamber of Commerce when it was talking about the role of the trade unions, to which this Bill gives a certain preferential status. In its submission it says:
There is no justification for a body to be included as a registered union other than by reference to the appropriate legislation for the registration of the unions. The Bill sets out numerous obligations on the part of employers to consult with or make available documentation to unions, in addition to employees. This creates duplication and the legislation sets out adequately procedures to be followed by employers which assist and protect employees making the involvement of the unions an unnecessary requirement. The Chamber of Commerce considers that the reference to the involvement of unions throughout the legislation should be deleted.
The Government, of course, has indicated already that it is not minded to accept that advice. That is a difficult position to take. To ignore the advice of those groups is, I think, unwise. I fully support the recommendation of the committee, to which Mr Duby has referred, that the role of those involved unions should not be entrenched in legislation.
I want to also quote from the submission by CARD, which makes a similar point. It says:
Abuses of this legislation can come from either one or a combination of: a disgruntled employee, an irresponsible involved union or an over-officious inspectorate as well as employers.
And it says in bold type:
Employer protection from possible abuses must be written into the legislation. If this is not included the legislation will be disruptive and can be used as a weapon against the employer.
I see nothing in what the Government has put forward either in the way of the original Bill or in the way of amendments since that time to show that it is cognisant of that concern. Certainly there are, as Mr Stefaniak indicated,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .