Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 1 Hansard (21 February) . . Page.. 141 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

In terms of choice, Ms Follett said it. Obviously, there has been a choice, through the whole process, for people to sign that authorisation when they join a union. They have a choice to move out of it as well. The language in some of these notices that are going to employees is, I think, indicative of part of the problem in the negotiating style of the Liberal Government. I was quite intrigued to see "Variation to an instruction" as the title of what you could also call a change of mind or a backdown. "Variation to an instruction" does not sound particularly inclusive, empowering or anything else to the people receiving it. Actually, in a musical sense quite often there is a variation to the theme. In this case the theme seems to be orders: "You shall do this. This is a variation to an order". The point is that, if you take this sort of attitude, it is not good management. You talk about good management so much; but, if you look at the most recent literature on good management, it is related to industrial democracy, which is related to empowerment of workers. This is not what you are about. It is not what is coming across.

Mrs Carnell: That is why we want to deal with individual unions.

MS TUCKER: Yes, and the rest! I know that line; yes. I heard that line. I am sorry, it does not work, because what you are talking about is, "We will empower the workers by giving each of the unions the individual right to fight for their members themselves". It is the same argument as the level playing field for competition policy; as if there is a level playing field. It does not exist. There are people in this work force who are weaker than others. There is not a level playing field, so it is a farcical argument. It is the same as the one that we are hearing in relation to competition policy, and it is being rejected soundly by many thinking people in Australia and around the world. It is the same kind of doubletalk that does not lead anywhere and certainly does not end up in social justice.

The other overall concern that I have is that there is an implication that unions are somehow really just an add-on; that they are not really necessary in the dialogue anymore; and that you can have a choice whether or not you have an association with a union. That is correct. I support that; you do have a choice. However, where I see that unions have a role - and lots of people obviously believe this also - is in being allowed to be part of the dialogue. It is quite appropriate that they use e-mail and that they have a payroll deduction for their dues. It is a right that workers have fought hard for.

Mrs Carnell: We are not trying to take that away.

MS TUCKER: Okay, you are not trying to take it away. A minute ago Mrs Carnell kept interjecting, "What is the problem with asking again? What is the problem with asking the workers every year, `Do you want to belong to a union'?". My question would have to be, "What is the point in asking them every year, `Do you want to belong to a union'?".

Mr Moore: On the off-chance that they will say, "All right, I won't".

MS TUCKER: Exactly. You are implying that, perhaps. Then you get e-mails going to those same workers, saying, "If you have anything to do with industrial action you could possibly be locked out", or, "If you cause some kind of industrial action we might

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .