Page 2013 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 24 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
presumably titles and perhaps even addresses that can be perused by union representatives. I trust that in the detail stage the Government will indicate its consciousness of the privacy aspects of this and the strong duty on an employer to maintain privacy, a duty which, if this Minister is true to her word, will shortly be imposed by privacy legislation. We need to look carefully at that aspect to determine whether it is not only those in the upper income strata of society that are conscious of their privacy requirements, but also the disadvantaged, the migrant workers and the workers themselves. I have some uneasiness about that clause.
Clause 47 of the Bill allows an involved union to apply to the registrar to have a health and safety representative disqualified from office for up to five years where certain grounds relating to misconduct exist. If you peruse the legislation you will see that there is no real right of review; there is no real right to give notice in advance. The legislation is draconian and it appears to be inappropriate for this day and age when removal of a health and safety rep for up to five years may have other serious implications. I invite the Government to look again at that to see whether it is against the spirit of a proper review of discretions. The registrar would be exercising a discretion at law, and that may be an area that the Government needs to attend to. After another quick perusal of the report, I did not see whether the committee had made any definitive suggestions in that regard.
There are other areas in this Bill where rights can be affected - the revocation of provisional improvement notices and variation notices and the like. This piece of legislation is not all milk and honey. There are areas in the Labor Party's own charter and direction that sit uneasily with this legislation. Of course, the overall historic need for this legislation is evident. I do not think we are going to debate it at large. As someone who grew up in Wollongong, a town that for years was rigidly controlled by the ironworkers union, I know how the pendulum swings and where proper balance has existed. As members know, the independents have been in power in that town now for years as a result of the excesses of the union era in Wollongong.
To give it its dues, unionism will result in proper regulation of workplaces, but I do suggest that the ACT is not known for flagrantly unhealthy and improper work practices. However, the legislation is certainly timely. It brings us into line with the States, and the Rally will, of course, broadly support the legislation, subject to the comments I made and some other comments about such matters as the possibility that involved unions could denote the type of protective clothing required, outside the industrial award. Those of us who have acted as professional advisers to the smaller businesses know how much it can cost sometimes to provide uniforms and other things that those who are serviced by government agencies with bulk purchasing and the rest do not appreciate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .