Page 5130 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It has been argued today that people ought not to belong to unions. It was even put to me that if a person did not belong to a union it could be argued that that person should not be entitled to the benefits. On the one hand, one could say that that is true: If you are a unionist you should get the benefits, and if you are not a unionist you should not. But the trade unions take a different view. They have a more socially just view of the world. They take the view that, if they have argued for a rate of pay and certain working conditions for a classification of worker, then that should apply across the board as a minimum. They have a socially just view of the world when it comes to the provision of wages and working conditions for Australian workers.
Much of the debate today has ignored industrial relations history in this country. That history has been about a long battle, in many respects, for the improvement of the rights of unionists to organise and to bargain, and they will continue to do that. Part of this process has found its way into the laws of the country, in much the same way as social change has found its way into laws of the country because the people have expressed a view politically, by weight of numbers, in one form or another, to have the laws of the country changed to reflect a different social value than perhaps was reflected at the turn of the century. That is the same as what has happened in industrial relations law.
But, when it comes to the conservatives and the Labor Party, it gets more complicated, because the conservatives seek to attack the base of the Labor Party, which is the trade union movement. It is from the trade union movement that we get our strength; there is no question about that. So, this is an ideological battle between us and the Liberal Party. It really has nothing to do with the laws on discrimination, as Mr Stefaniak seeks to argue in respect of his amendment. If the amendment was about those issues which concern the likes of Mr Moore and people who are concerned about compulsory unionism - entirely wrongfully, I suggest - that would be an entirely different matter.
This is about whether we ought to pass a law that will be no good. It would be worthless; it would do nothing. It is not about the ideological position of the Liberal Party or the Labor Party. It is about whether this Assembly ought to pass a law that will not work. It will not do what Mr Stefaniak wants it to do, because of the fact that Federal laws prevail. Mr Humphries said, "We ought not to be subject to those Federal laws". Well, every State in the country is.
In all cases where there is an industrial dispute which applies in an individual State in respect of a Federal award, the Federal award prevails; the Federal law prevails. Mr Humphries knows that. That will remain the case - there is no question about that - at least for the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .