Page 2218 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 31 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
as drafted to interfere with workplace arrangements. Duty of care is very much an employer's responsibility to his employees and in some cases vice versa. This should remain so. In relation to involved unions, this is where problems will commence. One has only to study the industrial situation in the ACT over the last ten years to define where our industrial unrest occurs. We believe that the legislation in regard to involved unions will prop up a declining union movement and give it scope to flex its muscles under another piece of legitimate legislation.
He goes on to say that they agree with the need for occupational health and safety legislation for the ACT private sector. They believe in civil liberties for employees, indeed the right of individuals to belong to a union and the individuals' right to approach a union on health and safety should they so desire. They do not believe that Government should facilitate the strengthening of a movement's power base through legislation. This would be so for the union movement in this proposed legislation, if this and the subsequent amendments are now agreed to. If the private sector is to fulfil its role in the provision of jobs for Canberra's young it cannot afford to be tied to restrictive pressures which will result from the unintended consequences of this legislation, that is increasing union power to interfere in the running of the workplace.
As I said last week, Mr Speaker, it is up to the private sector to be the main thrust behind future growth in Canberra. If we take steps that make it difficult for the private sector and indeed destroy sections of the private sector, there will be fewer jobs for our youth, fewer jobs for workers, and that surely is contrary to everyone's intention in this Assembly. I again urge members to delete the reference to "involved unions".
MR MOORE (4.10): I would just like to emphasise again, as I have expressed in this Assembly on a number of occasions on this matter, that my understanding at the time the committee report came out was fallacious and that in this respect I was wrong. So I will continue to support the inclusion of unions and the words "involved unions" in the legislation. Therefore, in spite of the fact that it was a recommendation of the committee, and partially through my own influence, I will continue voting in such a way as to ensure that the words "involved unions" are included in the legislation.
MR STEVENSON (4.11): The term "involved unions" is really a misnomer for, after all, it applies to organisations or businesses where unions are not involved, as it were. To continue with this part of the legislation will ensure that the union movement will have a far greater effect in places where there has been no problem, where businesses have been able to operate very well with their employees, and there
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .