Page 1336 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 12 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MRS CARNELL: No, both; all unions. As you know, they are all set up under the same Act, under the same rules. What I am saying, and, I think, what the Liberal Party is saying, is that we do not have a problem with unionism. Unionism is incredibly important. It is the basis, as many of you have said, of many of the good things that have come out of the workplace over the last 100 years or so. But the world has changed, and it seems to me that Mr Berry in particular just does not understand that. People do not like being compelled. People now know that they have rights; they do not need other people to tell them. If unions were made to earn their membership, the situation that has happened in my industry would not have happened. We would have a situation where the award represented and reflected the situation in other parts of Australia. I commend Mr Moore's legislation.
MR MOORE (11.39), in reply: Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, in responding I will begin with Mr Berry and his rather confused rhetoric. Perhaps that came from the fact that his case was so poorly prepared. It is interesting that it was poorly prepared on an issue that he seems to suggest on the one hand is of such great concern and on the other hand is no big deal, no worry, because this is a preference clause and Federal legislation overrides ACT legislation. The reality is that Mr Berry presented a range of rhetoric, and that rhetoric was based on the fact that he has in the chamber today some members of the union, who are important in terms of his own preselection. There is no question in my mind that it was important for Mr Berry to get up here and argue the point. If I were a member of those unions looking at Mr Berry's preselection, I would be wondering why it was that he did such a poor job in his preparation. I guess that it is also a factor that his preselection, after Robson rotation becomes part of our electoral system, will not be so significant.
This Bill is an amendment to the Discrimination Act. Ms Szuty explained that very carefully, and that does not need to be reiterated because she did such a good job. It is about discrimination, in the same way that marital status and other areas where people have a choice are dealt with. It fits into the Discrimination Bill so that it can be handled in the same way as other discrimination factors. Mr Berry also quoted me as saying something to the effect that if I were proved to be wrong I would reverse this decision. That is exactly what I said this morning to some of the union representatives, who clearly have spoken to Mr Berry since that time. But I did pre-empt it by saying, "I do not accept that that is what is going to happen. If I am proved to be wrong, then yes, I am capable of changing my mind". If that is the case, I will change my mind.
Mr Berry: It sure is. You have changed it since the last time.
MR MOORE: Mr Berry interjects that I have changed my mind since the last time. Mr Connolly much earlier made a similar interjection that I had voted against this very Bill. That reflects the very shallow level of the approach they have taken on this issue from the word go. It requires only a very quick reading of what happened last time to see that I have been completely consistent, and I explained that in my original speech.
The other issue raised by Mr Berry that I think needs to be dealt with is that this is a terrible way to deal with what really is, on one level, enforced unionism, remembering that unionism in this case applies to employee and employer organisations, such as the lawyers who were mentioned before. In dealing with
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .