Page 3764 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 24 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
employer or any employer representative organisation within the security industry that has a good word to say for this bill.
Another failure of this bill and the process by which it has been cobbled together is that it does not prescribe whether the LHMU can charge a fee. Ms Bresnan has said that the LHMU has said that it will not charge a fee, but that is not the point. Mr Corbell said in his presentation speech that it cannot, but the legislation does not say that. Further, Mr Corbell has done nothing to address issues of concern raised by the industry last year that this measure would further stifle the ability of the industry to recruit staff.
Nor has Mr Corbell acknowledged that the commonwealth’s Fair Work Act 2009 already requires employers to provide employees with Fair Work statements outlining their rights and obligations. Section 124 of that act requires employers to give new employees a Fair Work information statement that is prepared by the Fair Work Ombudsman and it allows further information to be prescribed by regulation.
The statement prepared by the Fair Work Ombudsman includes information about national employment standards, modern awards, agreement-making under the act, the right to freedom of association, a role for Fair Work Australia and the Fair Work Ombudsman, termination of employment, individual flexibility arrangements and right of entry including the protection of personal information by privacy laws—something which this bill is at completely at odds with.
You will observe, Mr Speaker, that this information largely duplicates the information that would be required to be given by the LHMU under this bill. This bill proposes little more than duplication of effort or, as I would put it, compulsory unionism by stealth. It is nothing more than a mechanism designed to make it easier for the LHMU to boost its membership numbers. It is an example of just how much the unions drive the policy making of ACT Labor, and it is done under the guise of doing the right thing by employees in the industry.
In reality, though, it is designed purely and simply to provide the LHMU with a captive audience to build their membership numbers. I note that you, Mr Speaker, when this matter came before the Assembly in 2009, opposed the legislation. I note also that you said you were not opposed in principle to the involvement of unions in this process but that you required there should be a coming together of all parties and a general agreement about the way forward on this.
It is interesting to hear today that Ms Bresnan is prepared to support this bill despite the high standards that you set for this bill to be brought back. It is clear that none of the things that the Greens called for in December 2009 have been complied with. This is the same piece of legislation that appeared in 2009. There has been no consultation. There is no agreement with the employers that this legislation should go forward. There is absolute opposition from all the employers about this.
But the Greens are prepared to fold. Why are the Greens prepared to fold? I think it is pretty clear. Ms Bresnan says that the Greens believe in the union movement. The reason the Greens believe in the union movement is because the union movement funds their election campaigns. It is clear from electoral returns in the past that the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video