Page 1337 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 12 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the Industrial Relations Legislation Amendment Bill in 1992 - and I will quote from the Senate Hansard of 4 June 1992 - Senator Bell talked about an amendment that later was carried. He said:
... the amendment to be moved by the Democrats will remove from the Bill any possibility of enforced unionism.
After an interjection by Senator Walters, he said:
I said that, because of the amendments I intend to move, the Bill will no longer contain any prospect of enforced unionism.
It certainly seems to be the case, since that was carried, that the Industrial Relations Legislation Amendment Bill was set up - with agreement, I must say, from Labor - to do away with that prospect of enforced unionism.
Mr Berry suggested that we should have dealt with this matter in the industrial relations legislation. I do not believe that that is the appropriate place. The appropriate place to deal with it is in the Discrimination Act because we are dealing with the situation where somebody is discriminated against because of their membership or non-membership - and it is really important to look at the flip side - of a union or professional organisation or organisation of employers or employees. He went on to say that, on the face of it, this is quite noble. It is not just on the face of it that it is noble; it is always important to protect people's freedoms. Mr Berry happened to get that one right; but, yes, there is some nobility about it.
To suggest that it would weaken the trade union movement, I think, is a furphy. If anything, it will strengthen the trade union movement. When the unions are working with people who are committed to their union, they will be that much stronger. The voluntary union of which I was a member in South Australia, the South Australian Institute of Teachers, allows that, and was a very effective union at that time.
The issues that need to be dealt with are those raised by Mr Lamont, who talked about unintended consequences. At least Mr Lamont dealt with the issue in somewhat more depth than was the case with his colleague Mr Berry, whose responses were very shallow indeed. Mr Lamont talked about common rule awards and the impact that this legislation may have. That certainly added some depth to the debate, but I do not accept the general rationale of what Mr Lamont was saying about employers being able to cajole, to bluff. Within the Discrimination Act there are the processes and the mechanisms to handle that sort of situation, and they have been used successfully up until now on other issues in terms of discrimination. However, I do recognise that the arguments put by Mr Lamont carried much more weight than the rather shallow approach taken by his colleague Mr Berry.
Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, it is with pleasure that I look forward to this amendment to the Discrimination Act passing through this Assembly.
Mr Berry: Mention the Federal Industrial Relations Act, Michael.
MR MOORE: I did, and I quoted a passage from Hansard about it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .