Page 1143 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 6 April 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
all sorts of other industry groups, look at their policy positions, we look at what they are saying and we look at whether those are good policies for the Canberra community.
People who sit down and think about this will realise that the CFMEU is the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, representing forestry and mining workers. And these are industries where there are sometimes clashes with Greens policies. I think everybody knows that pretty clearly. Yet no-one can say that the Greens have not remained steadfast on our policies around mining and forestry.
We do, however, support many policies of unions, support the right of workers to organise and be part of unions, and we appreciate and support much of the work that unions do and have done in the ACT and elsewhere which have been highly beneficial for workers. They have driven some great improvements that make a real difference in people’s lives, be it in terms of fair conditions or safety in the workplace.
On one side of the debate we have the Liberals who want to use unions as a campaign tool, as an attack point for political gain. They see this MOU as a great way to rehash all the same old lines, get some mud to stick and score a few political points. On the other side we have the Labor Party, whose party structure is interwoven with unions. They have worded their MOU in a way that is not entirely clear because in part it is a political and policy statement designed to reiterate the importance of unions, of policies supported by unions and to reaffirm unions as a key stakeholder. It is all punctuated by the ongoing background battles over the royal commission into unions and the building code issues at the federal level to which Mr Barr has already referred.
Let us try to put all of this aside for one moment and look at what the MOU actually says and what it actually means. I have read the document. I have sought out and received briefings from officials in procurement and asked how the MOU works and what it means for them in practice as they go about their actual job.
Firstly, I would say that 90 per cent of this MOU reiterates the existing laws and procurement requirements operating in the ACT. And that is an important thing to reflect on. As an example, Mr Hanson’s motion says that the MOU stipulates that contracts cannot be awarded to companies who do not give an undertaking to comply with the relevant obligations set out in section 3.3 of the MOU. Section 3.3 of the MOU merely sets out obligations that already exist, such as the requirement to comply with awards and collective enterprise agreements, compliance with legislation relating to equal opportunity and discrimination and compliance with all ACT legislation and government policy concerning procurement.
I will be happy for Mr Hanson, when he speaks later, to say whether he has any concerns with that. I do not find any of that remarkable. I would expect people who want to get a government contract, who want to be awarded a contract that spends taxpayer money, to actually comply with legislation. I do not find that a remarkable component of this MOU. There is nothing sinister here, nothing inappropriate and no special veto powers available to unions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video