Page 1324 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 12 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES (10.51): I really think Mr Berry and the Labor Government need to do a bit better than to say that the Liberals are on the side of the forces of darkness and that, because the Liberals are supporting Mr Moore's Bill, that is a good reason for it to be defeated. Once again in this place, I am disappointed with the lack of analysis, the lack of insight, that Mr Berry has exerted in demonstrating to this Assembly and to the public good reasons why, in his view, this Bill should be defeated. Mr Berry's speech consisted almost entirely of rhetoric, of name-calling, of broad, completely distorted descriptions of different social groups in this community - employers, workers, young people, women, children - without any real attempt to bring forward incisive arguments about why this Bill should be defeated.
Mr Berry says that this legislation will compete, for example, with the Federal industrial awards applying to the Territory, but he has not explained how. Are we not entitled to know that?
Madam Speaker, my party supports this measure because it is fairly described as our own measure.
Mr Connolly: You tried it once before. Mr Moore voted against you.
MR HUMPHRIES: That is a very good point that Mr Connolly has just made. We have somewhat mixed feelings about this Bill.
Mrs Carnell: I think it is good that people change their minds if they see the light.
MR HUMPHRIES: Indeed, it is a good thing that people change their minds, but we do feel a little strange in that this Bill reflects almost precisely the measures taken by Mr Stefaniak, a former member in this place, in 1991, when the Discrimination Bill was originally passed. At that time, a measure identical to this was put forward by Mr Stefaniak and defeated, with the combined support of Mr Moore and the Labor Party and, I think, some others. Nonetheless, as Mrs Carnell says, it is gratifying to know that, for whatever reason, we are now in a position to support this measure and find support across this chamber.
I am pleased that upon the passage of this Bill this Territory will have discrimination legislation which is complete and comprehensive and does not omit an important category of discrimination operating in the community purely on the basis that it does not suit the government of the day to have that kind of discrimination outlawed. If we are really concerned about discrimination in our community, we cannot tolerate the continuation of this kind of discrimination against people whose very right to work, whose right to earn a living, is threatened by their moral or conscience decision, possibly financial decision - I do not know - not to join a union. The fact that that decision causes workers from time to time not to obtain employment or, alternatively, causes workers to have to join a union or an organisation to which they do not wish to belong in order to secure or retain their employment is abhorrent. That should not be a condition of employment.
Unionism should be a matter of personal choice, as indeed is membership of any other organisation in this community. I cannot think of any other kind of organisation in this community for which it is a condition of living or working that one has to belong to it.
Mr Lamont: The AMA? The Pharmacy Guild? How far do you want to go?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .