Page 5116 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
change to the legislation. Mr Collaery, who earlier on waved around the extensive consultation documents, would, of course, confirm that. No-one suggested that.
This is a political stunt from the Liberal Party, which wants to have a debate about compulsory unionism. I was pretty much a contemporary with Mr Humphries at university, and I can recall, from my perspective at Adelaide University, that the ANU Liberal Club in the mid-1970s was leading the charge about compulsory unionism. The rhetoric that we heard then - that 1970s rhetoric from the ANU Young Liberals - is essentially what we are hearing today. It is a bit of a bash; it is a bit of a stunt - "We want to make some fiery speeches about compulsory unionism". It is totally irrelevant to this legislation.
Discrimination legislation or equal opportunity legislation or, as we prefer, human rights legislation, is on the statute books in most jurisdictions. Over the last decade, as this type of legislation has been developed, we have had Liberal governments and Labor governments in most parts of Australia. In no jurisdiction has anyone thought that this was a sensible move. That clearly indicates both the lack of any support in the community for Mr Stefaniak's proposal and the lack of any such suggestion in the community consultations. The fact that no other State has thought to do this must indicate to members that this is not a genuine contribution to the development of discrimination legislation. It is a political stunt by the Liberal Party to wave the old flag at compulsory unionism - nothing more, nothing less.
As Mr Berry very succinctly pointed out, the amendment, if passed, would be meaningless, because in many awards there are preference provisions - preference, not compulsory unionism - and it is clearly the case that a law of the Territory which is inconsistent with an award is of no effect, just as a law of a State which is inconsistent with an award is of no effect. So, nobody in a State has thought that this is a sensible move. Equally, I would suggest, it is not a sensible move for this Territory because it would be mere puff and rhetoric. Preference provisions in awards would continue to have effect.
Clearly, the issue of union membership is one of the more sensitive issues in the field of industrial relations. We saw the Greiner rhetoric of union bashing, designed to whip up a few votes before the last State election. It was not very successful from Mr Greiner's point of view, given the result. But it is Liberal Party strategy, nonetheless. We know that it is political rhetoric.
Anyone who seriously takes an interest in industrial relations measures must know that to move in this direction one would need to have massive consultation with the trade union movement and with employer groups. Has Mr Stefaniak floated this proposal with the trade union movement and talked to people in the trade union movement? I very much
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .