Page 1328 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 12 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Let us have a look at what happens outside those industries, particularly in those areas where employers have said, "No, we do not wish to have such a clause. We wish our awards to be constructed by named respondency only". Let us look at the clothing, textile and footwear industry as an example. That union must serve a log of claims on the individual employer and go into the commission and show that the employer has members of that trade union working for it. If they are unable to do so, the award is not then deemed to be binding. This provision allows employers, if not to prevent their employees from belonging to trade unions, at least to assist their employees to be convinced not to belong to trade unions.
I do not believe that I need to convince Ms Szuty and Mr Moore in particular that the inherent inequality between capital and labour is an argument that has gone on for centuries and will continue for centuries. This Bill will reduce the opportunity for some reduction of that inequality at this stage. In my view, anything which strengthens the arm of the employer to cajole, to bluff, to convince its employees not to be involved in award systems, not to be involved in trade union activities, should be resisted.
Mr Moore, I suggest that you consider not proceeding with the Bill in the way in which you are proposing but withdraw it to allow that particular consequence of your Bill to be more clearly defined. I do not believe that it is necessarily your intent to reduce the bargaining power of workers in the ACT, whether they are unionised or non-unionised. All I am suggesting you should do, as the Minister implored you to do, is to withdraw this Bill today to allow that issue to be addressed, and then bring it back before this Assembly for consideration.
MR DE DOMENICO (11.10): Madam Speaker, I rise to talk about the Discrimination (Amendment) Bill because, from the words of members opposite, one would have thought Mr Moore had introduced a Bill to ban unionism and, to use Mr Berry's words, kick workers out into the streets and disadvantage children. I think Mr Berry said that children will be disadvantaged by this incredible Bill, which is all of about four lines long. Let us get some reality back into the debate. Let us listen to what Mr Berry said. Mr Berry's opening words were, "This Bill is futile in reality". On the other hand he said, "But, on the face of it, it is noble". So it is both futile in reality and noble at the same time. Then he said, "Let us talk about the realities of the politics of the situation". This Bill, which is futile in reality, he then went on to say, was going to destabilise industry, weaken unions, lower wages, weaken the ability to attract construction workers to the ACT, and undermine the ability of women and workers re enterprise bargaining. If it is so futile in reality, why does it have so much power, Mr Berry? Is it because you are afraid that you promised to deliver on this Bill to your trade union mates and you will not be able to? Is that what you are talking about?
What did Mr Keating say three or four weeks ago? He said the opposite to everything you said this morning. Mr Keating was nearly kneecapped for daring to say that enterprise bargaining might even bite into the current award structure. That is what Mr Keating and Mr Brereton are about. They are about enterprise bargaining in a workplace situation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .