Page 5137 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
amendment to add to a ground that has been so thoroughly traversed out in the community. That, I think, was a reason that also bore heavily on the minds of members in the previous vote.
This issue of, essentially, voluntary student unionism, which Mr Stefaniak says that he is directing it at, is an old ideological piece of baggage that Mr Humphries and Mr Stefaniak cut their teeth on politically, around about the same era that I did, as students in the 1970s around universities in Australia. It was the big issue of the Liberal clubs around the campuses then; they had court challenges and what not. Voluntary student unionism was seen to be the huge issue. As far as I am aware, the issue died on the campuses in the late 1970s, and no-one is concerned about it. It is just not an issue.
Mr Duby: Yes, they won.
MR CONNOLLY: Essentially, they did, Mr Duby. What Mr Duby says is right. Essentially, they won, and for all practical purposes there is not such an institution as compulsory student unionism now present. It is a dead issue. It is not an issue that the community is concerned about. Again, in the extensive process of consultation, nobody raised this; so it is unnecessary.
The other point that I stress to all members, that again Mr Collaery made, is this: While Mr Stefaniak says that what he is on about is trying to ban compulsory student unionism, which Mr Duby said is no longer an issue, because of the form of words he has used it may well go much further than that. He is asking us to take on board a new and untested ground of discrimination - not something employed anywhere else, not a ground that has been through the consultation process, not a ground that any community group wants - purely to make a political point. I would urge members to not accept this amendment and stick with the grounds that have been extensively debated in the community. There is no merit in Mr Stefaniak's proposal, other than to make an ideological point which has ceased to have any practical validity since about 1979-1980.
DR KINLOCH (6.28): I voted no on the previous amendment put forward by Mr Stefaniak because I feel that the issue of compulsory unionism or no compulsory unionism is itself a very big issue. I do not think it should be inserted into a Bill that is really about other matters, about what we understand by discriminating against people. If it is a big issue, put up a Bill about it.
Similarly with this one. I was very much involved with this question about student unionism. One tried to move through the problem, trying to be helpful to all sides. Again, it is a separate issue. If someone wants to put up a Bill about compulsory unionism, then I would be prepared to listen to that. But here we are talking about the kinds of things that are to do with discrimination of race and creed; those are the important things.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .