Page 1482 - Week 05 - Thursday, 12 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There are more handpasses around this place than at the MCG. Off it went to Mr Connolly. Mr Connolly, unlike his colleague, did respond more quickly. Mr Connolly suggested this:
I think in this case the appropriate action would be for the person affected by the alleged discrimination to contact the Human Rights Office as soon as possible ...
Mr Connolly did suggest that perhaps there may have been some breach of the Discrimination Act. That is the first thing that the Minister might take on board. He might inform the Assembly of how he would handle a similar situation. One question we might ask is why the former Minister for Industrial Relations did handpass to Mr Connolly. I would have thought that Mr Berry would have been very concerned to make sure that even the union movement in this town did take heed of the law.
The second matter I would like to raise, Madam Speaker, relates to a building site in Weston recently. Mr Cornwell and I were out there that day. This involves a building company and a building union. I am saying that it is not just the union movement that ought to be taken to task here. The employers should be also. A building company and a building union - - -
Mr Lamont: I am sorry; say that again.
MR DE DOMENICO: A building company and a building union, in this case the CFMEU - - -
Mr Lamont: The employer should be taken to task here too?
MR DE DOMENICO: Yes, if the employer goes against the Discrimination Act.
Mr Lamont: The employer should be taken to task too?
MR DE DOMENICO: That is right; if they have breached the Discrimination Act, Mr Lamont. Everybody who breaches the Discrimination Act should be taken to task, surely. In this instance, Madam Speaker, a building company and a building union, namely, the CFMEU, would not allow on that site any subcontractors who were not involved in CERT, the union's redundancy and superannuation scheme. In fact the subcontractor involved was in the MBA scheme. He poured the concrete and subsequently it was physically ripped up because of this. This is nothing but blatant discrimination. Once again, there was no statutory obligation to join one scheme or the other. There was some obligation to join a scheme, but this contractor was not allowed on the building site unless he was a member of a particular scheme.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .