Page 1327 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 12 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is a clear need for unions in this country to grasp the reality that their entrenched position of the past is neither in the interests of this community nor acceptable to the majority of people in the community. If you want proof of that fact, I ask you to look to the dispute only a month or so ago between this Government and members of a trade union. That trade union had a very serious dispute with this Government which resulted in great hardship to many members of this community.
Mr Berry: How many?
MR HUMPHRIES: Several hundred. Whether Mr Berry will admit it or not, his Government at that time felt that that union was acting unreasonably. He will not admit it on the floor of this chamber now, but the fact is that he did. In fact, he said almost as much in the course of that dispute. That union, like all others, should operate on a basis that it proceeds with industrial action strictly on the understanding that it has the support of its members, and this Bill of Mr Moore's will ensure that that is a little more likely to be the case. It will not guarantee it, but it will be more likely to be the case because that union will have to rely on attracting enough members to carry weight in an industrial dispute. If it does not do that, it simply will not succeed. I hope that Mr Berry and his colleagues realise that this measure is the way for the future.
MR LAMONT (11.05): I want to take the opportunity to put two points that, unfortunately, time constraints prevented the Minister from concluding on.
Mr Moore: You mean that he forgot about them.
MR LAMONT: No, time constraints prevented it from being done. Obviously, if you had given him an extension of time he may have got through to them.
Mr Moore: If he had asked for an extension of time he would have got it.
MR LAMONT: Mr Moore, this is addressed to you. You have been very strong in relation to the question of unintended consequences of Bills or other resolutions passed through this Assembly. I think you should take due notice of what I believe is the unintended consequence of what in some areas should be an applauded reform in Australia and, indeed, in the ACT.
The unintended consequence as far as trade unionism is concerned, and the effect on trade unions, has to do with the award system and how it operates. That award system is a Federal system enshrined in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, now called the Industrial Relations Act, which talks about how awards shall be structured. In the ACT they are structured on one of two bases. The first is a common rule award. Let us look at who has common rule awards. You will invariably find that common rule awards apply where trade unions have been able to sit down with employer organisations and employers and negotiate an award setting out conditions, entitlements, the incidence of the award and so forth, and saying, amongst other things, that the conditions within that award shall apply to those persons who are members of the respondent union and employees who may not be members of a trade union. It quite clearly says in the common rule awards that the employee of an employer covered by the incidence clause in the award does not have to be a member of a trade union. It is the trade unions that negotiate that position, and they do so from a position of strength within those industries.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .