Page 1330 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 12 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That is what we hear Mr Keating and Mr Brereton say from time to time, and John Howard and everybody else. But what did Mr Berry do? Before it got to the umpire, the Industrial Relations Commission, he stopped it. It would have been interesting to see what Mr Berry and the Government would have done had the umpire had a chance to ratify it. Mr Berry talked about the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. Why did he not let it go to the Industrial Relations Commission? We still have not heard an answer on that.
Mr Lamont said that, had Mr Berry had enough time, he would have said two more things. It is all well and good for Mr Lamont to stand up here in this house, when it is his turn to defend the trade unions. Where was Mr Lamont during the ACTEW dispute? If Mr Lamont is such an incredible expert on trade union matters, why did not the Chief Minister call him in to settle the ACTEW dispute? Where was Mr Lamont when the Transport Workers Union stacked Mr Connolly's branches because Mr Connolly was deemed to have said something against the trade union movement? You cannot have it both ways.
This Bill - an innocuous Bill, but a very important one nonetheless - is about removing discrimination in the ACT. It is a discrimination Bill. It has nothing to do with throwing workers out into the streets and making it more difficult for children, for heaven's sake, to get jobs, or whatever Mr Berry said. It is not here to undermine the ability of workers to participate in enterprise bargaining. It is not here to weaken the ability to attract construction workers in the ACT - this is Mr Berry talking - and it is not here to weaken the union movement or destabilise industry. It is here to remove discrimination in areas where it exists, and for that reason the Liberal Party is proud to support the Bill.
MS SZUTY (11.17): Madam Speaker, I rise to support the amendment by my colleague Mr Moore to the Discrimination Act, and I am pleased to do so. This is an ideological viewpoint which accepts that unions can and do assist their members and have an important role to play in the industrial relations sphere when asked to do so by their members. However, I feel that compulsion, by including union membership as a prerequisite for employment or promotion, denies individuals the basic right to determine for themselves whether they wish to belong to a union or professional organisation.
I have had it argued to me in correspondence on this matter that the success of the amendment Bill will disadvantage women. I do not accept this argument, as union membership will not be banned but will be made voluntary. If women are considered to be particularly vulnerable in the workplace, then the union can offer itself as advocate and, when an employee joins the union or association, act on behalf of that person. If the union suspects that a worker is being paid less than the award wage, it is in their interests to prosecute the matter in the Industrial Relations Commission for the benefit of their members, regardless of whether the person being paid less than the award wage is a member or not.
Following the passage of this amendment Bill, it will be up to union officers to ensure that they fully explain to potential members what they see as the benefits of belonging to a union, but to allow individuals to determine what is in their own best interests. Many women choose not to belong to unions, particularly those in part-time and casual employment, as they do not see any direct relationship between their employment and the fees charged by unions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .