Page 714 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 24 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MOORE: It was an effective political argument rather than a legal argument at the time. Because this amendment is made to the Discrimination Act I believe that the court may find that the two are not inconsistent. In order to determine that outcome, this law would need to be tested in court, and no doubt will be. In the process of testing it the courts will raise again in the public domain the issue as to whether or not we need, or find acceptable, compulsory unionism. We certainly know that Mr Berry argues that there is no such thing as compulsory unionism, but I would argue that if you cannot work unless you become a member of the union it is a rather compelling reason to join a union. That is compulsory unionism.
What is important here is that the tone be established. There is certain conduct in our society that is unacceptable in principle. The conduct that is unacceptable has to do with the question of basic human rights, and that is the human right of freedom to associate and freedom to choose. Many argue that the difficulty with this legislation is that unions can achieve their goals only if they have collective strength, and of course there is some merit to that argument; but you do not get collective strength Stalin-style by forcing people. If you want a union to operate on collective strength, it can be achieved not by forcing people to be a member of the group, as has been done in some of the right-wing and left-wing fascist states, but by encouraging people, by showing them the advantages of being in the union. Should I leave this job tomorrow to return, for example, Madam Speaker, to teaching, I would immediately become a member of the union because I see the benefits of that particular union.
Mr Kaine: No, you have 18 months to go yet, Michael.
MR MOORE: Mr Kaine interjects that I have 18 months to go. It is becoming more difficult for people to see thee. I remind you, Madam Speaker, that we had interjections from the Liberals to that effect in the last Assembly, and many interjections from the now defunct Residents Rally to that effect.
As the unions amalgamate and grow larger, there has been a great distance between those in control of the unions and their membership. That is probably what is making Mr Berry particularly uneasy at the moment. I think the union movement is at a point where it must reassess its position and try to understand why it is that people are leaving it in droves. People will not be forced or coerced into unions, but can be convinced when they can see the benefits of being part of the union. There is a little temptation here for me, Madam Speaker, to sing a song about, "You can't touch me, I'm part of the union", and Mr Lamont might join me; but since singing is not my strong point I shall spare the ears and the difficulty Hansard may have trying to put that into the text.
The other argument against this legislation, which also has some strength, is that members of unions have won advantages in the workplace over the past 100 years or more, so why should non-union members take advantage of those workplace reforms? There is some strength in that argument. Once again I argue to members of the union that what you need to do is to convince people of the importance of the union and to encourage them to join a union rather than to force them. What the argument fails to take into account is that some people have very good reasons for wanting to exercise their democratic right not to join.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .