Page 5442 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 8 December 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
must certify that. Of course, one of the pieces of information they would be providing me with would be how to join the miscellaneous workers union, because that is the union that has coverage over this industry. I may not want to be a member of the miscellaneous workers union
I would like to put it on the record, Mr Assistant Speaker, that most of the time I was employed in the commonwealth public service I was a member of a union. The attorney may want to make statements about how members of the Liberal Party are anti-union, but that is not the case. I have always been a member of a union. I have always encouraged my children to join the appropriate union which has coverage, especially when they are minors, because it is important that someone looks after their rights. Interestingly enough, they could never see why they should do that, which means that unions often are not relevant to young people. They do not see the benefits for them, even when their parents encourage them to do so, as I have always done.
If I become a bouncer I may or may not choose to become a member of the miscellaneous workers union. If I choose not to and say, “Thank you for that information, but I won’t be filling out your membership form today,” I wonder how long it will take before I receive certification. That is the issue that concerns me most—that this could become a barrier to people getting their commencement in the industry and that we may return to the no ticket, no start approach that we have seen from unions.
Mr Rattenbury spoke at length about the way in which this matter could be dealt with and could have been dealt with by this minister had he chosen to. He could have said to ASIAL, the chamber of commerce and the major employers across the town: “I think that we have some vulnerable workers here. I want to find some ways of ensuring that they are appropriately informed. Let’s have a conversation about it.” But he did not do that; he just tried to sneak it in under cover.
If this minister wants to consult and goes out to the chamber of commerce, the AHA, ClubsACT, ASIAL, Chubb, Wilson and all the other people who are major employers in this town and has that conversation, I will support him. When he has that consultation with all those people and with the union and comes up with a proposal, I will look at it very carefully. If it had general sign-off across the community, we would be in a very difficult position to oppose it.
If the minister can come up with a proposal to ensure that vulnerable workers—as he describes them—get access to this information, which does not breach commonwealth law and has general sign-off, the Liberal Party will be happy to look at it. We have not got that today. We have got compulsory unionism by the back door, snuck in by Simon Corbell, in consultation with his left-wing union mates. We will not be supporting that. I am quite grateful for the considered support from the Greens because it shows that they too see the problems with this.
As I have said before, I wonder what large employer groups, union groups and consumer groups around the ACT would think if this went through. What would stop Mr Corbell then saying, “Well, you know, there are a whole lot of people in the building industry and the building industry is a dangerous place”—yes, it is—“and how about we say that you can’t start work in the building industry until you go to the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video