Page 5122 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Stefaniak's party can go to the polls in a year or two - I suspect that it will win if things keep going the way they are - and get this matter decided at the Federal level, if it wants to. But, in the meantime, what Mr Stefaniak seeks to achieve is to pass a law which, to the extent to which it is inconsistent with awards, orders and determinations that give a preference to organised labour, will be ineffective. Section 28 of the self-government Act indicates that, and Mr Stefaniak is aware of that.
The fact is that the Rally - at least the MLAs, because the Rally does not have a policy on compulsory unionism - is empathetically, I am quite sure, opposed to the closed shop and to compulsory unionism. We nevertheless support the great gains of organised labour. But we believe, in common with Mr Berry's Labor cohorts on the hill, that there has to be a move away from the closed shop, such as enterprise based bargaining and the rest. In my view, if we were to start a 1950s-style debate about compulsory unionism here today, we would mar the passage of this Bill.
Also - and I will be very frank about it - I see no reason why we should give Mr Berry, as spokesperson on industrial relations, an issue at the next poll on which to say that we are union bashers, because I am quite sure that he will do that. When we cannot gain anything and cannot win our case and stop compulsory unionism, I cannot see why we should expose ourselves to some opportunistic political grandstanding by Mr Berry.
Of course, the Rally, because of its strong stand on social justice and other issues, gets a considerable number of votes from people who may have, until they fell by the wayside, voted Labor; and we have no intention of giving Mr Berry a slick way out because Mr Stefaniak wishes to make a statement. It is a statement that we agree with, but the method we cannot agree with. Therefore, we will not be supporting the amendment.
As Mr Connolly says, there has been a long process of consultation in respect of this Bill. It was never anticipated that we would, through this legislation, tackle the great issue that bedevils our country, which is compulsory unionism. Like alcohol advertising and other issues, it must be tackled federally. Shortly before an election, it is hardly propitious, in my view, or politically wise, for those on this side of the house to take on the hoary old issue of compulsory unionism, because I believe that it is not going to be resolved in a "them and us" debate in a parliament. It is going to be eroded as the unions, the ACTU and the employers move to enterprise based bargaining and similar types of arrangements.
The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act of the Federal Government adopts the International Labour Organisation conventions concerning discrimination in respect of employment and occupation. Of course, those conventions
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .