Page 5110 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES: I will come to that. I am talking about the principle, Mr Connolly. We will talk about the law in a minute; I am talking about the principle of the matter. We are arguing the principle of discrimination here. If we found an Act of the Commonwealth somewhere else which allowed sex discrimination - were that to be possible, which I doubt; but if it happened - we would not hesitate to argue that it should not occur. I am arguing here that this sort of discrimination should not occur. In fact, I throw it back on the Labor Party. What is the in-principle basis for allowing people to be discriminated against on the basis of whether they belong or do not belong to a particular organisation?
This provision, I think, is one which needs to be argued on its principle, on its merits, and I have not yet heard any arguments from those opposite which justify the idea. Two people come to an employer for a job; one belongs to a particular union and one does not. Why should one get the job over the other?
Mr Berry: It is in the award. The law describes it.
MR HUMPHRIES: Why in principle should that be? Mr Berry has not given any in-principle reason. Mr Connolly apparently is going to speak on this matter and, when he does, he can give us a reason why this happens. Do not just say, "Oh, it is in a Federal award; we cannot do anything about that. It is in a Federal Act; that is the end of the matter".
I say that because, Mr Speaker, I do not believe that it will long be a matter for which Federal law overrides ACT law. The fact of life is that there are a number of jurisdictions, not just the Federal coalition in the Federal Parliament, which are moving away from these sorts of restrictive provisions. We know full well that if the coalition is elected at the next Federal election - the opinion polls seem to give it a good chance of doing just that at the present time - we will see a move against those sorts of provisions in this sort of legislation. Have no doubt about it. So, the issue has to be addressed in the ACT.
What is our stand on the question of discrimination on the basis of membership of industrial organisations, be they of employers or employees? I have not heard a single argument put forward yet by anybody to say that there is a good basis for discrimination against people who do not belong to trade unions. Let us hear what it is, and we will debate the merits of that argument.
MR STEVENSON (5.06): Mr Humphries put the case very well indeed.
Mr Connolly: You would support anti-union laws; that would be right. You are opposed to any other aspect of human rights but will have a bash at this.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .