Page 5121 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
support the motives behind it, could turn out to produce nothing but a paper tiger - and something which, in effect, would bring the whole discrimination or human rights legislation into disrepute.
Given that, and given the arguments that have been put by the Attorney-General and by Mr Berry, a dedicated former union shop steward - I suppose that is the right term, or perhaps "organiser", "secretary" or "official" - I would suggest that it may well be in Mr Stefaniak's interests, rather than pushing ahead with this amendment, to withdraw it at this stage so that full legal and industrial advice can be obtained on this matter.
There is no point at all - and I am a firm believer in this in all regards, not just in respect of this legislation - in having a law which cannot be implemented or which, having been passed, we know will be flouted, because that brings into disrepute not only the legislative process but also the very concept of the rule of law. There are many examples of stupid laws.
I think a prime example is one which was passed by the Alliance Government - and it had the support of this Assembly - which prohibited the game of two-up on Anzac Day, whereas we know that every year that law is flouted but that the police and the authorities conveniently turn a blind eye. Such laws are foolish and should be eliminated. I think it would be very dangerous for us to introduce legislation which we know cannot be enforced; and, indeed, the enforcers would not wish to attempt to enforce it, for the very reason that it would have no effect at all.
Accordingly, I reluctantly find that I will not be supporting the amendment proposed by Mr Stefaniak. It encompasses a whole range of issues which require much further consideration, particularly the issues in regard to section 28 of the self-government Act which relates to our inability to pass laws which are inconsistent with Federal laws or regulations. I think we would be opening a hornet's nest if we put this particular amendment into place. So, reluctantly, that is the position that I have come to after listening to the quite sensible debate on this issue that we have had this afternoon.
MR COLLAERY (5.36): I must say that, along with many of us in this chamber, I find compulsory unionism an anachronism. It is an anachronism in our times, and Mr Berry's own party is progressively endorsing enterprise based bargaining and issues that will bring us away from the closed shop. But the reality is that, just like advertising for alcohol, that issue has to be attacked nationally. I believe that the question of the closed shop and compulsory unionism has to be approached nationally.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .