Page 2107 - Week 10 - Thursday, 26 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
employer bodies, which are the peak employer bodies in this Territory. There is no reference to employer bodies, though, in this legislation and only several references to "involved unions". The thrust is at employees and employers. Indeed, we would submit, Mr Speaker, that the thrust of the legislation is, and indeed should be, to get employers talking to their own employees and reaching, on the shop floor, an enterprise level agreement. The whole idea of this legislation is to get people talking together so that they come up with an agreement that is going to work.
I would submit, Mr Speaker, that unions do not have legislative backing to interfere with businesses now. They should not be given it through this legislation. When negotiating before the Industrial Relations Commission, employers are represented by their associations and employees are represented by unions. I believe it would be a disaster for private enterprise to force individual small businesses to consult with national unions.
Mr Whalan has put out a paper in which he indicated the Government's intention to put back "involved unions". It is interesting to note that this legislation was put before the Assembly in May; the committee reported on 6 July; and, because of the committee recommendations, the Government suddenly went cold on this legislation.
The legislation was not put back, or intended to be put back, before the Assembly until late last week. It would seem that the Government and its union friends then felt confident that they could keep in the reference to "involved unions", go against a majority recommendation of the committee and ensure that it was circumvented on the floor of this Assembly. I think that it will be a rather disastrous day for this Assembly if that succeeds, because it strikes at the very heart of our committee system.
I would also submit that this would probably have some dire consequences for ACT industry. Mr Moore, the independent NIMBY friend of mine, has often talked about ecological problems in the Territory and the delicate ecological base that we have. We also have a delicate economic situation. I think that the whole thrust of this particular piece of legislation is to get people talking in their businesses and not have pressure put on them from outside bodies. If that happens, we could see a number of businesses going out backwards. That would not be good for the Territory, and certainly not for the small businesses.
All the employer organisations which appeared before the committee were most concerned about the term "involved unions". They were most concerned with the fact that, if they were involved in an industry where there might be only one union member at a workplace, a union would be involved and they would have to consult with unions all the way along the line. That is not what is intended with the legislation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .