Page 5123 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
provide for reservations for judicially recognised awards. And, of course, recognised judicially are those awards which Mr Berry states give a preference to unionists.
I think that this is a large windmill for a small assembly to tilt at. I think it would bedevil our human rights and equal opportunity legislation because, contrary to Mr Stevenson's outlook, human rights is a peaceful humanitarian process of adjusting powers within the community. The industrial relations front is a sector that needs to be fought over through other instruments, in my view, and they are the instruments that are being argued now by Mr Greiner in New South Wales and progressively by the Federal Liberal-National Party coalition. Mr Stefaniak, I believe, wants to use this parliament to run an issue which will be resolved only federally.
Finally, the other reason why I cannot support this amendment is that Mr Stefaniak's law will be good only in so far as there is a gap in the Federal awards. In other words, for every award that does not contain a preference for union labour, Mr Stefaniak's provision would prevail. I can tell you now what would happen, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker. There would be an immediate move by the TLC to get all the issues covered by a Federal award to effectively knock out Mr Stefaniak's open shop provision.
I do not think that the Territory, in its current difficult economic phase, needs such a level of industrial disruption, particularly before an election. I have not had the chance to consult with main employer groups in the Territory who may not, I believe, have much confidence about this matter settling without a fuss in the ACT community. There may be some rednecks in the employer groups who would like to see this measure introduced, because, empathetically, I believe that many of us in this house support the notion that compulsory unionism is an anachronism. But I wonder whether we would have even the main employers' support in taking this tilt when we are seeking to win an election over the Labor Party.
MR MOORE (5.43): When I saw that the new-found union member - Bill Stefaniak with his police union - had put up an amendment like this, I thought to myself, "This looks like a sensible idea", knowing that Mr Stefaniak himself has now become so enthusiastic about unions such as the police union. At the same time, I make it quite clear that I agree with Mr Stefaniak, in principle, that it is now inappropriate to have such a thing as compulsory trade unionism. I make no bones about my position on that.
However, I am going to oppose this amendment at this time, because I believe that it would create more problems than it would resolve. It would certainly be entirely inappropriate for us, at this stage, to pass an amendment that could well be overturned due to the way that it conflicts with a piece of Federal legislation. That is something that I would like to look into further.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .