Page 1322 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 12 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR BERRY: You did not say that in the debate. Why should the unions not take some credit for winning better wages and working conditions for those members? Why should there not be preference clauses? There is no reason. Preference clauses are provided for in the Federal legislation. That principle is completely contrary to what Mr Moore has set out to do.
The Federal legislation recognises the role of unions and their legitimate involvement in employment matters - not the compliant variety, any variety; all unions, even unions that struggle, Mrs Carnell, to increase the rights of their workers in the workplace. They are the unions that have put in place the base for the wages and working conditions and the standard of living in this country. It was not the bosses that did it. Preference clauses are recognised, as are unions, in the scheme of things.
As I have said, the first people who will be hit by Mr Moore's approach are women and children. You may not recall this, but a few years ago a certain fast food company came into this town and wanted to operate outside the awards. Thankfully, the unions were in a position where they were able to prevent that from happening. You might recall that those shops remained boarded up for some years until they toed the line and paid award wages and working conditions.
Mr De Domenico: Unless you do what the unions want, we will board your shop up. Wonderful stuff!
MR BERRY: No, unless you toe the award line. The award was to be preserved. If you undermine the ability of unions to protect their workers, as is proposed in this approach, then those things will be allowed to happen.
In the public sector, the merit principle generally applies through legislation in most employment areas. It obviates the need for the Moore amendment, of course. That is not so in the private sector, although in the public sector there is at least one area I can recall that has a preference clause, and it has worked very effectively.
Finally, employers who are members of employer associations are adequately protected through the Industrial Relations Act and the Trade Practices Act, so the Moore amendment will be substantially irrelevant there. The place to deal with industrial relations matters is through industrial relations legislation or through the structures which are built underneath that legislation. In this Territory we have so far supported - and Mr Moore has supported it - the Federal industrial relations legislation and its effect on the workplace in the ACT. There has been no reason for him or Ms Szuty to resist that. The Liberals get a bit cranky about it from time to time because they do not like the recognition the Federal Industrial Relations Act gives to unions. They want to weaken the ability of unions to protect their members. They want to strengthen the bosses and take away from the - - -
Mr De Domenico: Did you hear what Mr Keating said the other day?
MR BERRY: Indeed, I did hear what Mr Keating said, and I know how he feels. He does not want to see workers weakened or their unions weakened either, but you do. The Moore amendment will either create or exacerbate problems that it cannot solve. It is naive, unnecessary legislation and it will create more problems than it allegedly sets out to fix.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .