Page 2108 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 9 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
provided in the award. I am particularly disturbed, Madam Speaker, that the Industrial Relations Commission has made recommendations which the company refuses to comply with. As members opposite know, from time to time I am at cross-purposes with certain members of the union movement; but in my discussions with the union movement, and even in debates when we have them, I comply with the Industrial Relations Commission, as they do. What the umpire says goes. That is the way the union movement operates; that is the way this Government operates. This company does not.
As a result of the dispute, some person or persons unknown apparently moved a crane and a site shed - the sort of thing which occurs from time to time. The principal of the company, as I understand it, asked for the Federal Police to press charges. The Federal Police, as I understand it from the report that I have from the principal of the company, declined to do so. The Federal Police in this town, in common with police forces throughout Australia consistently under Liberal and Labor Federal governments and Liberal and Labor Territory governments, have adopted the view that they will exercise discretion in policing and not confuse industrial relations with breaches of the criminal law.
From one perspective, Madam Speaker, almost every industrial action, every picket, can involve some form of breach of the criminal law. A case of common assault - a mere threat - can easily be made out. The police, under Labor and Liberal, have taken the view that they did in this case. The police decision was a police operational decision. I had no part in it. Indeed, the police have not themselves advised me of that decision. I was advised by the party principal to the industrial dispute, who is seeking to whip up some anti-unionism out of this.
I have no intention of interfering with that police operational decision. I would not direct the police either to press charges when they felt that they should not or not to press charges when they felt that they should. That is entirely a matter for the police. The decision that they have made, Madam Speaker, is consistent with a longstanding practice in this Territory under governments of either political persuasion. It is very disturbing if the local Liberal Party, hell-bent on a union confrontation ideological agenda, is now upping the ante by saying that we should have police involvement in industrial disputes.
MR WESTENDE: I have a supplementary question. My last question was: Does the Minister condone the union breaking the law in depositing site sheds on people's personal property?
MR CONNOLLY: I have no knowledge as to who did what - only of a series of allegations from the party principal.
ACTEW - Youth Employment
MS ELLIS: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for Urban Services. This question is in light of much discussion and controversy over past months regarding youth unemployment. What is ACTEW doing to provide employment opportunities for the youth of the ACT?
MR CONNOLLY: I thank Ms Ellis for the question. It is a most timely question because it coincides with an announcement today. The ACTEW board met today. Mr Kaine was furiously interjecting this morning, "What are you doing about unemployment? What are you doing about unemployment?".
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .