Page 5111 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON: Mr Connolly says that I would support anti-union laws. That is false. What Mr Connolly says is that you must be in a union. There is a vast difference. Why is it that we get constant misrepresentation from members of the Labor Party? Mr Connolly, why do you not take the opportunity shortly to get up and argue the point, as Mr Humphries said, rather than make false accusations about what I would and would not do? I would no more dream of outlawing unions than I would dream of preventing people from having a say in government.
I think it is a vital thing. I have worked with small businesses, and I have seen the necessity - I have seen it grow. I have seen why people need the opportunity to form an association, or a union. I absolutely agree with it. But that does not mean that I think it should be taken over by ideological people who are going to use it not to benefit people and stand for rights but to destroy rights, as has been done often within the union movement. Some of them do an absolutely wonderful job. But would you suggest that this has not been taken far too far by some people?
I commend Mr Stefaniak for bringing this particular amendment before the house. Why, indeed, should people be forced to join a union? Why should they be forced to pay money - quite a lot of money - out of their pay packet each week to a union to support union activities even when they absolutely disagree with some union activities? Why should people be forced to give money to unions when the unions, in many cases, then donate money to the Labor Party to further their own ideological goals?
Mr Humphries correctly challenged the members of the Labor Party. He said, "I have not heard anybody say why the unions should be allowed to force people to join them and why people should not have the right to determine that for themselves". Yet, the best we can get from the Labor Party is misrepresentative interjections that do not relate to the amendment before the house.
Mr Humphries asked, "Why?". Mr Berry replied, "It is in the law; the law prescribes it" - the legal positivism idea that because it is there it is right. But Mr Humphries did not ask that. He asked, "Why should it be?", and Mr Berry gave no reason whatsoever. Mr Connolly certainly should be able to present at least the Labor case. It may not have much validity, but by all means let us have an opportunity to hear him. I would enjoy hearing Mr Connolly debate the specific reason as to why people should be forced to join unions. Let us hear what the reason is. Let us hear the debate against the amendment moved by Mr Stefaniak.
I think Mr Humphries was right when he said that such legislation will not be long coming in Australia. I certainly support the right of all people to join a union. Indeed, when I was a member of the New South Wales Police Force I was asked whether I wanted to join the police
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .