Page 2109 - Week 10 - Thursday, 26 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
evidence placed before us by private industry and organisations which are terrified this provision will be left in the legislation. Unions, naturally, will be involved where they are currently involved.
In the building industry there are current agreements on occupational health and safety in certain areas. In other industries where unions play a role and have played a role in the past it is natural that those unions will supply the occupational health and safety representatives from the shop floor. But where unions are not involved, where employees have not joined the union - and the employees still have freedom of choice in this Territory - there is no reason why unions should be foisted on those areas of ACT industry. Let people make their own free choice as to whether they wish to join a union.
MR COLLAERY (11.04): The term "involved union" appears in a number of clauses of the Bill. It appears in the definition itself on page 5 of the Bill. It appears in clause 27(3)(b). It appears in clause 30(2)(a); clause 37(6); clause 38(5); clause 41(1); and clause 47(1)(b). Also, a number of decisions can be appealed against by an involved union if its members are affected. They are: "revoking a provisional improvement notice", clause 54(4); "revoking an improvement notice", clause 73; "a prohibition notice", clause 74; and "a direction", clause 75.
The registrar's decisions may be appealed against by an involved union provided its members are affected in a number of other areas: firstly, in establishing a designated work group under clause 38(1) or (2); varying a designated work group under clause 38(3); revoking a provisional improvement notice under clause 54(4); and other provisions in clauses 73, 74 and 75 involving inspectorate roles. Mr Speaker, the term "involved union" has, on my reading of the Bill, a pervasive role in this piece of legislation.
With due respect to the fine work the committee had done, I was surprised that the committee, in arguing to omit the term "involved union", did not make a more philosophical statement as to the reasons. With respect to the committee, I suspect that the real reasons were essentially ideological rather than functional and that the ideological problem is that there are elements of the industry that fear what unions will do in a workplace. I draw members' attention to clause 37(7) on page 18, line 25, which says:
An employer shall not establish or vary a designated work group without consulting -
(a) each involved union in relation to employees; and
(b) if there is no such involved union - such of the employees as the employer considers appropriate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .