Page 5109 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Very clearly, Mr Stefaniak's amendment, if it were to be enacted, would have no effect because it would be inconsistent with the law which is defined in subsection 28 (2) of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act, and because it, very clearly, would be inconsistent with the law prescribed federally, and we all know that the Federal law would take precedence.
It is very clear that Mr Stefaniak has chosen this course on ideological grounds; it is the old "knock the union" stuff. There are some people in this chamber who would be opposed to unions or union members having preference in awards or in law, or of any other sort. Whether they like it or not, those are matters of fact and they cannot be overturned by laws made by this Assembly. The Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act specifically prescribes that prohibition.
Those who are legally trained would understand and agree with the argument that I have put. Those who wish to pursue an ideological argument, an anti-union argument, will disagree. It is an anti-union, anti-labour argument rather than an argument based in law. So, Mr Speaker, it makes sense for this Assembly to reject Mr Stefaniak's proposed amendment.
MR HUMPHRIES (5.02): Mr Speaker, I certainly did not expect Mr Berry to accept this amendment, and he has not disappointed me. I note that in the argument he put forward he did not actually argue the question of discrimination. This is a Bill about discrimination; it is a debate about discrimination. He was not prepared to consider the question of discrimination in the context of this debate.
In clause 7 of this Bill we are talking about acts of discrimination. The attributes form the basis of acts of discrimination which we are outlawing by this Bill - sex, sexuality, transsexuality, marital status, pregnancy, race, political convictions, et cetera. All those sorts of things are mentioned.
Mr Berry: It is an anti-union move.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Berry categorises it as anti-union. What Mr Berry is saying to the community and to this Assembly is that discrimination on the basis of membership of an organisation such as a trade union - - -
Mr Berry: No, I am telling you what the law says.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, what Mr Berry is saying is that discrimination on the basis of membership of a trade union or other organisation is a good ground for discrimination. People should be able to - - -
Mr Connolly: The arbitration commission has said that since 1903 - preference clauses.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .