Page 5125 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES: You have had your chance, Mr Berry. You can have another go in a minute. The fact of life is that I have not yet heard in this debate a single, good, in-principle reason why we should allow and sanction discrimination on the basis of membership of a trade union.
If one is prepared to defend compulsory unionism, if one is prepared to defend the sorts of rorts that go on in this community - - -
Mr Berry: There is no such thing. Have a look at the Federal Act.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, could I have some order, please?
MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, Mr Humphries, you can. Order, Mr Berry!
MR HUMPHRIES: Thank you, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker. If we are going to do anything at all about the sorts of rorts that exist in this community that are engendered by the situation where trade unions have the right to demand the allegiance of members of a particular work force because that is part of the award structure, or part of an agreement with employers that they be members of that union before they can be employed in that industry, then we, I think, are failing in our duty as members of this legislature. We have a responsibility to provide for the maximum extent of rights that we can grant to the people of this community, to the citizens of this Territory. We are not doing so by failing to pass this amendment.
The question of Federal awards is an irrelevant one. I think it is a matter of some repugnance that we should concede in the first place that Federal awards made by a Federal court can override the view of this Assembly. This is the parliament of the ACT. We have the right to make laws with respect to the peace, order and good government of this Territory. Why should we not have the power to make laws with respect to issues such as terms of employment in the ACT with respect to people who live and work in the ACT? Of course we should have that power, and the idea that a Federal award will override us is repugnant, it seems to me, to the notion of self-government. I, for one, think that particular provision is inappropriate and I hope that we will move quickly to do away with it.
I also remind members that we cannot assume any permanence in either the awards or the Federal Act that Mr Berry quoted from in the Federal context. There will be moves against those provisions in due course; take my word for it. It may be by the next Hewson Liberal Government at the Federal level, or it might even be by the Hawke Labor Government - maybe even the Keating Labor Government; who knows? - in the Federal sphere before the next Federal election.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .