Page 2108 - Week 10 - Thursday, 26 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In his paper issued the other day, Mr Whalan indicated:
The legislation, as originally proposed, would simply recognise industry reality and require employers with employees who are members of unions to consult with those unions before making any final decisions.
It does not require them to reach agreement with the union as is required in New South Wales and Victoria but, rather, just to consult. Anyone who knows anything about industrial relations has a pretty fair idea of what would happen if they did not reach a final decision. The unions would use their muscle to force the issue, and I do not think that is acceptable. Mr Whalan went on to say:
If the ACT legislation does not require such a role, we may well be handing responsibility in this area to a third party, the Federal Industrial Relations Commission, which has already indicated on several occasions its interest in dealing with disputes over occupational health and safety.
He went on to indicate that in one particular industry, the vehicle industry, the commission handed out an award overriding occupational health and safety legislation for four States. In relation to that, an award was handed down and it was held to be a valid award. The commission has to take into account occupational health legislation in the States but is not bound by it. Accordingly it made an award. That is quite different from what Mr Whalan is indicating here.
He went on to say that to refuse to recognise the role of unions would mean that, to play their proper role of protecting their members, they would have to operate outside the system. The industrial relation arena would be their only recourse and industrial action their only means of ensuring appropriate employer attention to their problems. That is a threat, Mr Speaker.
Currently this legislation is not in operation, but in some industries there have been agreements for occupational health and safety. There are not, and have not been, huge problems in relation to unions striking or using industrial action in relation to occupational health and safety. The whole thrust of this legislation is aimed at the relationship between employees and employers. Those terms come up time and time again in the Bill. There is very little reference to involved unions.
I submit that the committee, which looked hard and long at this issue and received a large number of submissions in relation to it, should have its recommendation adhered to today. To go back on that would be contrary to all the work done, all the submissions put before the committee; it would be thumbing our noses at the vast majority of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .