Page 2003 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 24 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
certain protections against certain activities by employers that might be deleterious to the position of either involved unions or employees; but certainly nothing quite in the nature of a reverse protection for employers, particularly against individuals or unions that abuse the powers created, or the framework created, by this Bill.
As yet I have heard no convincing argument from the Government which says that there should not be such protection. I do not see why protection should not cut both ways. Perhaps the other speakers from the Government side will enlighten me in that regard. I have to say that my observation of the position of trade unions in Australia over a number of years leads me to doubt the wisdom, which is, I think, deeply entrenched to some extent in Australia's industrial relations system, of having preferred status for certain trade unions. I say "certain" because the elaborate registration system and other checks and balances in that conciliation and arbitration system very much create the status of preferred unions.
It is a matter of regret that that has been there, because in my view much of Australia's industrial unrest and lack of economic competitiveness in the world derives from the deeply entrenched and intractable system of union preference. Our whole conciliation and arbitration system has ossified, and it is very sad that we are not able to make badly needed changes to the system, because there are such deeply entrenched interests preventing that from occurring.
I hope that we do not contribute to that entrenchment in the ACT by making unnecessary preferences in favour of what are called here "involved unions". I see no reason for it. I would hope that the Government would be aware of trends towards more flexibility in the workplace and I would certainly hope that that was given consideration in this Bill.
I want to refer also, Mr Speaker, to a comment that the Deputy Chief Minister made in his Government response to specific recommendations of the select committee report. In the body of those comments he makes a rather ominous sounding statement. Referring to the role of involved unions, he says:
Furthermore, to refuse to recognise the role of unions will mean that to play their proper role of protecting their members they will have to operate outside the occupational health and safety system.
Now what does that mean? How does one play a role or operate outside the occupational health and safety system?
Mr Kaine: It means they do not accept the referee's ruling.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .