Page 5126 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I say that because in the last few years the Federal Government has moved quite some way towards enterprise bargaining. It follows that with enterprise bargaining there is the capacity for unions and employers, or workplaces and employers, to negotiate terms different from those arrangements that currently apply, and they may include non-compulsory unionism.
To the extent that there is such an arrangement in the ACT with respect to particular workplaces as a result of enterprise bargaining, the provisions of this law, as amended by Mr Stefaniak's amendment, would be operative. The Federal Act to which Mr Berry refers does not cover every workplace. It covers many but not all workplaces. The number of workplaces covered by Federal awards is in fact diminishing, I understand, and the number of trade union members as a proportion of the total working population is diminishing all the time as well. So, there are many parts of this community which are not affected by those Federal provisions and which should be covered by this law. As I say, I have not yet heard a single good reason why, in principle, we ought not to extend the principle of anti-discrimination to people who are in the workplace.
Mr Berry made a very telling comment. He said, "Preference for trade union members gives advantages". Membership of a trade union can give advantages. That is quite true. But every discrimination gives someone an advantage. When a woman goes in for a job and cannot get it because a man is preferred by an employer, the man has a preference and the man gains an advantage. When an Aboriginal person goes in to get served at a bar or a restaurant and is turned away in favour of a white customer, that white customer gets an advantage. Advantage is the other side of discrimination. It follows that if you are going to outlaw discrimination you have to also outlaw some advantages for some people who do not deserve them. I do not see yet, and I cannot understand, why a person who belongs to a trade union ought to have an advantage over someone who does not. I have not yet heard any reason put forward why that should be the case.
I am disappointed in the Residents Rally for its inability to stick to its position on this matter. That is a matter of some regret. But I think the public of the ACT will have something to say about this. The Liberal Party's position remains very clear: We are opposed to discrimination on the basis of membership of a trade union. We will take that position to the next election, and I believe that we will win significant support from citizens of this Territory because of that position we take. Apparently, we are the only party in this Assembly that does.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .