Page 2110 - Week 10 - Thursday, 26 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
If one looks at the definition of "involved union", one finds that the union can get involved even if no-one at the work site belongs to the union. If those workers are doing the work that is covered by an award that the union covers, this piece of legislation gives the union the right to go on site in a previously union free situation and do something.
Now, on one side of the camp we hear that the union might cause trouble to a working relationship between employer and employee that was harmonious prior to that visit. On the other side of the camp the Rally hears that there are sweatshops where the employees are sufficiently intimidated by a lack of employment in a city not to complain to a union that their award covers. In practice, all of us who have done a little bit of this work - and I have not done much - know that both those situations exist. Essentially these are still the fundamental, nineteenth century-type concepts of the role of unions and the fairness of employers. But I would say the vast majority of employers in this town would not have a part of any sweatshop situation.
If we narrow this down, we are really talking about the building industry where there are transitory situations; fast working job sites where standards can lapse sometimes in a desire to get scaffolding up. I can think of no worse situation than the way in which the Churches Centre went up, where clients of mine were forced to lay multiple levels of very heavy fire-resistant bricks, some of them weighing seven kilograms each, at levels above their shoulders and around their ankles. There were significant workplace injuries as a result of those improper practices and the use of scaffolding that did not fit and did not correlate with the levels of that type of formwork and brickwork.
Speaking on behalf of the Rally, I see both the issues in this. On the principally vexed issue in this piece of legislation - I do not think there will be very strong ideological argument after this - I simply say that the Rally holds the balance of power in this matter. It is not hard to amend legislation. After long and vexed discussions with industry groups and bearing in mind Mr Berry's statements which speak eloquently for the union movement, the Rally has taken the view on balance that we should allow this piece of legislation to pass in this form. We will wait to hear any reaction.
We will circularise the industry and, if the legislation is misused, particularly in the building industry, I serve notice on our friends and on the unions that we will move in and support the Liberal Party in any amendment it wishes to move to omit the definitions. I serve that notice. However, at present the Rally does not oppose the insertion of "involved unions" in situations where they are not there yet.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .