Page 1096 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 16 March 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
ensure that people are not exploited. I think it is very important that at some point the unions, as I said earlier today, comes to appreciate the fact that the marketplace has changed.
I had a meeting with the ACTU several years ago because they were running into trouble in getting people to become members. They said, “Can you give us some marketing advice?” It was very evident then, because they were struggling, that they no longer knew what the people out there, whom they purported to represent, were really into. The issue that I think is coming through loud and clear there is that the union movement is rapidly falling out of touch with the so-called constituents they purport to represent.
In relation to AWAs and the role of the employment advocate, different people have different needs. Most of us want choice to suit our individual circumstances. We are not all working under production line factory industrial revolution-type conditions anymore; people want to have that degree of flexibility. That is where these industrial relations arrangements that now exist in this country work wonderfully well.
I am pleased to see that Mr Gentleman acknowledges, at his point three, the benefits of AWAs in providing flexibility, especially the family-friendly conditions that individuals have negotiated. But I would suggest that Mr Gentleman turn his attention to the union movement, which consistently opposes more flexibility. Again I will reflect back on previous industrial negotiations in which I used to have to do battle with unions because employees in front-office jobs in hotels said they would like to earn a few more dollars in banqueting on Saturday nights.
The work was there, the demand was there, the hotels had the business. These young people said, “I want to pick up a few more dollars”—but that was not allowed under the award. That was heresy and they were worried that that was going to cost some jobs that in fact were not there in the first place. They were desperate to get labour, and young people in hotels around Australia were keen to do the hours. We had battles galore to try to get acceptance of that degree of flexibility.
It seems to me that the only opposition you hear in this country to greater choice and flexibility comes from trade unions. They seem to be faced with declining membership; they are struggling to maintain relevance; they cling to terms like “the exploitation of workers”. You almost have to go into political treatises to see these terms used anymore. If you talk to the average young person, they really do not know what you are on about.
This is reflected in the fact that when some of these union leaders come down from Sydney they make the occasional visit and make a bit of a show. In many businesses in Canberra they struggle to get people who will even give them the time of day. I could cite some specific examples. I will not embarrass the employers in Canberra by naming them, but they have had to struggle to try to convince people to even listen to these officials who come down from Sydney.
It was interesting that, in the work and family test case, the ACTU opposed proposals to free up employment arrangements that would make life easier for people to try to balance work, family and social commitments. In particular, the ACTU resisted part-time provisions and therefore continued its discrimination against women. I would like to hear what Mr Gentleman and other members of the Assembly say about this.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .