Page 713 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 24 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, I was a trade union member all my working life prior to joining this Assembly. In fact, at Ingle Farm High School in South Australia I was the staff representative for the South Australian Institute of Teachers, the teachers union in that State. The difference between that union and many unions that operate now was that it required, at that time, a secret ballot for any form of industrial action; and, in fact, at the staff level all decisions were made by secret ballot. My introduction to unionism was in a union which was a particularly democratic organisation. The other interesting part about the South Australian Institute of Teachers was that it was entirely voluntary to be a member of the union, and as an organiser and a staff representative I spent a great deal of time convincing people of the advantages of joining a union, and I convinced them without having to fall back on tactics that are only a little short of blackmail and coercion. When we have that form of tactic to force people into unions, or for them not to be able to work or to be promoted, what we have is compulsory unionism.
It is appropriate, Madam Speaker, that this is an amendment to the Discrimination Act. The Discrimination Act is, I believe, inappropriately named. Some members will recall that at the time we debated whether or not the Act ought to be called the Human Rights Act. I believe that it should be called that. We should deal with an amendment to that effect. This is an issue of human rights, Madam Speaker. If Australia is ever to adopt a Bill of Rights, and that is another debate, there will be no doubt in my mind that it should include the freedom to associate, because most of us recognise our basic human right to associate with whomsoever we choose. Coercion, Madam Speaker, to associate with someone we choose not to associate with, or to prevent this association, would be entirely inappropriate under any such Bill of Rights. Article 20(1)(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adds as a rejoinder to its right to associate a requirement that no-one be compelled to belong to an association.
In voting against this amendment put up by Mr Stefaniak in 1991 there were two major issues that were raised that would not allow me to support it then. The first was the fact that there had been no public consultation whatsoever on his amendment. The public consultation process will now begin, and the earliest that the Assembly, as I see it, should bring it back on will be at the next sitting in May. The second point, Madam Speaker, was an argument that was presented by Mr Berry, and no doubt he is presenting it again - I have heard him doing so publicly - that because Federal law overrides ACT law this amendment will have no impact whatsoever. Having had the opportunity to take legal advice, I now believe that it is not such a clear-cut case. It was an effective political rather than legal argument at the time. Because the amendment is made to the Discrimination Act - - -
Mrs Grassby: It is just a medium rabid situation.
MR MOORE: Madam Speaker, the interjections from Mrs Grassby are really quite cacophonous and are making it quite difficult.
Mr Connolly: You need protection from Mrs Grassby?
Mrs Grassby: He does, yes. I apologise, Madam Speaker.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .